Headline - Ban divorce? Ballot effort gets OK to gather signatures

He'll probably get the signatures he needs. The evangelical Christians will love the idea. Some other not-too-tightly-wrapped people, too.

Don't be too sure. I have a bunch of divorced evangelical Christian friends, and they'd never go for it.

I know a couple like that myself, but they got divorced before being "reborn."

I'm bemused thinking of Debra Bowen punching the button on this, which I assume was legally appropriate - she's well respected, not least by me.

No, never ban divorce. For some (like me) it was a blessing!

aside from this being totally inane (not unlike most "voter initiatives") I'm curious as to just many $$$ will be spent both pro and con.

however, making divorce more difficult, and ending "no fault" divorce would certainly be a good idea. Making it more difficult to get married would be good as well, for instance needing to take some education, and wait 30 days.

It was a blessing for me too! She took me to the cleaners but I came out feeling clean. If you ban divorce then you might as well ban marriage as well!

divorce... a learning opportunity....

Why? So people can make each others life more miserable? I agree however
that it should be more difficult to get married. Couples should have to wait
at least 3 months from the date they set out to be married and attend
combat ...uh marriage classes.

I could almost agree with that, CJ. But - I'm recalcitrant to lectures myself.

So, I'm probably against this.

But wait, I need to review the ways I disagree with hawkeye.
Or do I.

1) because most people are going to think twice about getting married if they know that getting unmarried will be a huge pain in the ass, and that it might even be a fight to get away.

2) because delay and obstacles to divorce gives the agents of the collective who support marriage and the family time to help the partners overcome the obstacles in marriage which have convinced them to get a divorce.

this may have changed, but in Munich 1990-92 I worked for a guy who was getting a divorce. He was living with his girlfriend, but the divorce itself was expected to take 5 years, because he had kids and because the wife did not want a divorce....that was a good way to handle the situation.

Geez. Some of you guys seem to be taking this initiative seriously, Almost like it had some sort of chance of actually being passed.

Shackin' with someone else because divorces are hard to get? Yeah, that may have potential, as would shackin up instead of marriage. I'll have to think about that.

I figure most of us don't take it seriously, Or, geez, I hope not.

I am VERY fine with that....by all means let's separate those who are serious about union from those who are not.

That said, those who get married should be rewarded with tax breaks and marriage services, that the "shacking up" do not get.

Fair enough. Of course, the actual tax advantage goes to those who don't marry, if both have approximately the same income.

we have been talking about fixing that for what, 30 years? But we just cant seem to get it'er done. Our support of marriage, families, and even the well being of kids is much more lips service than reality. OOPs, we are not allowed to talk about THAT.