http://www.wral.com/senate-bill-would-make-it-harder-to-untie-knot-in-nc/12291236/

Quote :

"Senate bill would make it harder to untie knot in NC RALEIGH, N.C. — State lawmakers are considering making divorces harder to get in North Carolina. Senate Bill 518, dubbed the Healthy Marriage Act, would double the one-year waiting period before a divorce could be granted and would require husband and wife to receive conflict resolution counseling"

Quote :

"Tara Benson, whose divorce will be final at the end of the month, said she doesn't think another year of pain would have saved her marriage. She said she got married too young, and it simply didn't work. "One year was definitely long enough, and it was too long in a lot of senses," Benson said. "I just think it delays the inevitable and just hurts in the process. It just draws out a process that you don't want to have to deal with." North Carolina's one-year waiting period is already longer than most other Southeast states. Georgia and Tennessee, for example, require only a few weeks before a divorce is granted, and Florida couples can file online to have their marriages dissolved. Virginia and South Carolina require no more than a year's wait, and Alabama has no waiting period."

I'm starting to move towards the more libertarian leaning position questioning the government's involvement in marriage. Since that's not going to happen in my lifetime though, and since marriage is so entangled in hospital visitation, inheritance, immigration, property rights, insurance, taxes, being able to change your name, and so many other things in our society I do want to see marriage equality for same-sex couples as a step in the right direction, or at the very least lifting explicit bans like DOMA, Prop 8, and Amendment 1.

Quote :

"The proposal doesn't offer any exceptions for domestic violence or abuse, but Allran said he might add that to the bill before its first hearing in committee, which could come this week."

Just more social conservatism from this legislature with the potential for unexpected negative consequences (besides the obvious and expected negative consequences). But if we do this and ban boobs then surely our economy will be stronger!

4/1/2013 8:00:48 PM

Fools.

April or otherwise.

4/1/2013 8:08:13 PM

they aught to just make it harder for folks to get married in the first place...the straights, i mean, as they've already done a good job keeping the gays from doing it

4/1/2013 8:43:12 PM

^+1. Also, aught ought

4/1/2013 9:02:19 PM

I am embarrassed to be a North Carolinian

4/1/2013 9:36:51 PM

This will make a lot of military dependents at Bragg and Lejeune happy.

4/1/2013 10:06:01 PM

they'll have something to bragg about

4/1/2013 10:31:42 PM

I found this part interesting:

Quote :

"Allran said he also wants to scrap the mandatory separation during the waiting period and have couples remain under the same roof."

I think it'll help drop divorce rates quite a bit. Though I think you'll see homicide rates sky rocket. Nothing says "crime of passion" quite like forcing two people, enraged by infidelity, to live with each other for 2 more years.

4/1/2013 10:39:10 PM

hahaha, i think what that idiot would see would be a marked increase in unmarried cohabitation

4/1/2013 11:18:42 PM

This is fucking stupid. If anything divorces should be easier to get. 2 years to get a divorce, why?

4/1/2013 11:35:26 PM

to make you sit in a corner and think about what you've done, of course

4/2/2013 12:40:02 AM

Quote :

"to make you sit in a corner and think about what you've done, of course"

Or worse, if one spouse is abusive, that makes the other suffer for that much longer...

4/2/2013 6:34:49 AM

As a Republican, I find this just as repulsive and just as big of an attack against personal liberty as I do being forced to buy healthcare. I'm going to have to jump over to being libertarian, but God I just can't get behind Ron Paul.

4/2/2013 6:52:06 AM

I think they're missing out on an opportunity here. Reduce the waiting period to 2 months and just double the fees associated with getting a divorce.

4/2/2013 7:32:33 AM

Nothing in the current language of the bill requires married couples to forcibly cohabitate after deciding to divorce. It just removes the "separate and apart requirement for a year" prior to the divorce being granted and replaces it with a "two year waiting period".

^ Then you just end up disproportionately affecting people who can't afford the fees.

[Edited on April 2, 2013 at 7:36 AM. Reason : ....]

4/2/2013 7:35:23 AM

The ALEC/Pope government we now have is really turning this state into a joke. If the goal is to become more like Mississippi we are certainly headed that way.

4/2/2013 7:54:11 AM

^ Thanks for your intelligent contribution to the conversation.

4/2/2013 8:14:17 AM

Quote :

"I am embarrassed to be a North Carolinian"

4/2/2013 8:51:03 AM

Meddling in people's lives is the North Carolinian way! Just abolish state marriage altogether so people don't have to be subject to this bullshit.

4/2/2013 9:03:01 AM

They really don't have anything better to do?

4/2/2013 9:10:30 AM

god dammit republicans, get the fuck out of private life.

4/2/2013 9:11:07 AM

I voted for these people to keep them OUT of our private lives.

4/2/2013 11:07:27 AM

when have they ever stayed out of peoples private lives?

4/2/2013 11:49:04 AM

Quote :

"god dammit republicans, get the fuck out of private life."

4/2/2013 12:17:23 PM

If amendment one wasn't a good example that they had no intention of staying out of people's private lives before the 2012 election, I don't know what is.

4/2/2013 1:01:15 PM

Anyone who buys the Republican Party as the "small government" party for the last 30 years is a complete dumbass.

4/2/2013 1:49:50 PM

Quote :

"As a Republican conservative, I find this just as repulsive and just as big of an attack against personal liberty as I do being forced to buy healthcare."

4/2/2013 2:23:44 PM

This is one of the reasons why I can't believe people don't overwhelmingly vote for democrats. It wouldn't take more than one or two crushing defeats for the republicans to figure out that nobody wants this shit and actually change their platform for the better. And the democrats can't possibly fuck things up as badly as the republicans are right now.

4/2/2013 3:02:48 PM

because a large amount of people don't care to be up on the issues

4/2/2013 3:06:12 PM

With shit like this, I don't think anyone can salvage the Republican brand. Not with the best marketing team in the world.

4/2/2013 3:54:02 PM

this is the same shit they've been doing for awhile now, but thanks for noticing it this time

4/2/2013 4:00:29 PM

Yeah, it's nothing new. I thought the GOP would have learned that the social conservative bullshit wasn't selling anymore, but the Santorum wing is digging their heels in. They actually believe that they just didn't espouse their "values" firmly enough in 2012.

No self-identified fiscal conservative is going to be voting for your standard Democratic candidate either, though.

4/2/2013 4:22:55 PM

Quote :

"This is one of the reasons why I can't believe people don't overwhelmingly vote for democrats. It wouldn't take more than one or two crushing defeats for the republicans to figure out that nobody wants this shit and actually change their platform for the better. And the democrats can't possibly fuck things up as badly as the republicans are right now."

Isn't this state historically democrat at the state level of government? You would think years (decades?) of being the minority power would have taught them that no one is interested in what they're selling. The real problem is, they're politicians, what they want is power and control over you because they know better. It's the same reason why when they lose the next election, the democrats will see it as a validation of the actions which got them voted out in the first place, rather than a statement that the voter want something different than the democrats they kicked out and different than the republican man children they voted in.

4/2/2013 6:56:54 PM

those democrats are today's republicans

4/2/2013 7:01:00 PM

Given the 2010 redistricting maps, we're likely to see bills like this keep coming for the rest of the decade. The only question is whether or not the Pope/McCrory administration keeps the Governors mansion in 2016 (a statewide race immune to redistricting), thus putting up a higher threshold of votes required to pass legislation and avoid a veto, which would hopefully weed out some of the crazy.

4/2/2013 7:07:37 PM

Quote :

"I find this just as repulsive and just as big of an attack against personal liberty as I do being forced to buy healthcare"

Except divorce isn't directly a public health issue. :-\

4/2/2013 7:31:42 PM

Quote :

"No self-identified fiscal conservative is going to be voting for your standard Democratic candidate either, though"

a pragmatic one who realizes that the only options with a chance of winning are big government and shit like this, and big government and civil liberties might

4/2/2013 8:00:45 PM

^^Who gives a fuck what the subject matter is, its an affront against personal liberty >.<

4/2/2013 8:19:08 PM

Quote :

"a pragmatic one who realizes that the only options with a chance of winning are big government and shit like this, and big government and civil liberties might"

To hell with being "pragmatic," the fact is, if everyone who ever said "I'm voting for the lesser of two evils" voted for a third party, any third party, while they might not win the first few times, they'd certainly help change the course. If you're presented with the choice of rape with lube or rape with a condom, you don't rationalize for the condom for protection or for the lube for comfort, you fight the hell back to avoid being raped in the first place. You may not always succeed, but you should always fight back.

4/2/2013 8:34:00 PM

^^ practically all form of gov. falls under that; you're basically speaking gibberish.

4/2/2013 9:16:01 PM

^no, it doesn't. and government involvement in healthcare only becomes a "public health issue" when peoples' tax dollars cover the private (and often self-induced) medical problems of others, which is bullshit in the first place.

4/3/2013 9:44:24 AM

Quote :

"To hell with being "pragmatic," the fact is, if everyone who ever said "I'm voting for the lesser of two evils" voted for a third party, any third party, while they might not win the first few times, they'd certainly help change the course. If you're presented with the choice of rape with lube or rape with a condom, you don't rationalize for the condom for protection or for the lube for comfort, you fight the hell back to avoid being raped in the first place. You may not always succeed, but you should always fight back."

third party candidates don't have the finances for that to be realistic, that's why I said pragmatic

4/3/2013 9:46:03 AM

Quote :

"To hell with being "pragmatic," the fact is, if everyone who ever said "I'm voting for the lesser of two evils" voted for a third party, any third party, while they might not win the first few times, they'd certainly help change the course. If you're presented with the choice of rape with lube or rape with a condom, you don't rationalize for the condom for protection or for the lube for comfort, you fight the hell back to avoid being raped in the first place. You may not always succeed, but you should always fight back. "

i agree completely. i will never vote anything but third party ever again unless big changes come in the republican party.

4/3/2013 9:51:04 AM

Quote :

"^no, it doesn't. and government involvement in healthcare only becomes a "public health issue" when peoples' tax dollars cover the private (and often self-induced) medical problems of others, which is bullshit in the first place."

The necessary conclusion of this philosophy is no safety net for the poor and disadvantaged.

And the problem with that is that the poor and disadvantaged become a cost to society whether you help them or not.

[Edited on April 3, 2013 at 11:28 AM. Reason : .]

4/3/2013 11:25:53 AM

Lets make it impossible to tie the not in the first place. Just love each other.

I'm Krallum and I approved this message.

4/3/2013 11:38:28 AM

I didn't use to think this... but now I think government should just get out of the business of marriage. Let private citizens decide how they want to create, define, end, and document their marriages. Let private citizens use private legal services to establish rights and procedures related to "married" individuals. The IRS can just give everyone the same exemptions, etc.

4/3/2013 11:43:52 AM

if you take the government out, you have to take IRS incentives out

4/3/2013 1:02:50 PM

^ exactly, which is also desirable

4/3/2013 1:06:43 PM

isn't that what I just said? exemptions shouldn't be tied to marriage. everyone just gets the same thing.

[Edited on April 3, 2013 at 1:45 PM. Reason : .]

4/3/2013 1:45:05 PM

I'm game for that, though I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime. I think getting rid of amendment 1s, Prop 8s, DOMAs, and those sort of bans for same-sex couples is a step in the right direction for the time being since marriage is tied to hospital visitation, inheritance, immigration, property rights, insurance, being able to change your name, and so many other things in our society, not just tax breaks. But I could see getting government and IRS tax incentives out of it as an ultimate goal, and just letting people and churches do whatever they want to do, sign whatever contracts they want to sign, and officiate whatever ceremonies they want to officiate.

But amendment ones and anti-divorce bills seem like we're going in the opposite direction in North Carolina. I think it might take this generations grand kids coming to power before North Carolina catches up on that front.

4/3/2013 1:59:26 PM