GA state senator proposes bill to extend waiting period for divorce.

[Fausto]

Yes, we're all about smaller government with less involvement in the lives of our citizens. Really. We are.

From AJC.com

Spouses seeking a divorce soon may have to wait longer before they can call it quits, and those who commit adultery could lose their rights to marital property.

Several state legislators are pushing bills they say will strengthen marriage by making divorce a longer, and perhaps costlier, process.

A Senate bill introduced Wednesday would extend the waiting period from 30 days to six months for an uncontested divorce of a couple with children, and to four months if no children are involved.

The bill by state Sen. Mitch Seabaugh (R-Sharpsburg) calls children "innocent victims" of legal separation and divorce. They are often "negatively affected academically, socially, emotionally, and psychologically" by the stress and trauma of divorce, the legislation declares. Last year, a similar bill was approved in the Senate, 33-21, but died in the House Judiciary Committee. With Republicans in control of the House, the divorce bill now has a good chance of passing.

Legislation to stem divorces or make them harder to acquire may receive support from Democrats, who also have expressed concern about the high number of failed marriages.

Many opponents of Georgia's constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, approved over- whelmingly by voters on Nov. 2, argued that gay marriage would not hurt the institution of marriage as much as divorce does.

Some conservative national organizations, such as James Dobson's Focus on the Family, have devoted considerable effort to promoting marriage and to urging couples to seek divorce as a last resort.

The bill before the Georgia Senate would require divorcing parents with children to attend classes for a minimum of four hours that focus on the effects of divorce and separation on children. Many judicial circuits in Georgia already require such classes.

"The social impact of divorce is overwhelming," Seabaugh said. "I think it is important to do what we can to help families."

"Anything to cut down on divorce is a good thing," said state Sen. Nancy Schaefer (R-Turnerville), one of the bill's co-sponsors. She is president of Family Concerns, a nonprofit, Christian organization dedicated to family issues.

"If a couple would stop and think about what they're doing, that could change their minds," Schaefer said, referring to the longer waiting period.

The waiting period would be waived if either the husband or wife has a protective order or if there has been family violence.

Some legislators expressed concern about meddling in the private lives of Georgia citizens.

"I've been married for 30 years and I believe in marriage, but people have a right to make a decision they can live with," said state Sen. Valencia Seay (D-College Park). "This bill is telling people how to run their personal lives. I don't think that's our duty."

The divorce rate in the United States has steadily increased. A study by the Census Bureau in 2002 said nearly half of recent first marriages end in divorce. In 2003, 59,441 couples married in Georgia, while 35,018 divorced, according to National Vital Statistics Reports.

*sigh*

 

[dmcowen674]

I just went through this.

I did not know about the 30 days and a done deal because there is no children.

She retired on June 24th and filed for divorce the next day. A Judge signed the papers in the 30 days as promised under the law.

It may seem crude but Government has no business in private matters, whether that be Marriages themselves or behind the doors.

The U.S. just continues to lose personal "Freedoms" everyday by getting more and more "Overlawed".

When I was attending DMCA/RIAA/MPAA meetings in Atlanta the first words out of the Politicians mouth for his speech was "As a Lawmaker I must justify my job by getting as many Laws passed as possible during my Career".

He didn't like it when I said Bullsh1t, I said your job is to represent the will and best interests of the people and that is not dictated by having more and more restricting of rights Laws created.

 

[conjur]

But it's to protect the sanctity of marriage.

Two people that argue or fight or have no respect for each other (esp. in the case of infidelity) can surely be fixed in 4-6 months. All these people need is a little lovin' from Jesus.

 

[piasabird]

Maybe they should make it harder to get married?

 

[Centinel]

Originally posted by: conjur
But it's to protect the sanctity of marriage.

Two people that argue or fight or have no respect for each other (esp. in the case of infidelity) can surely be fixed in 4-6 months. All these people need is a little lovin' from Jesus.

Now why do you have to interject the religious tones? Why bring in religion? Why not just stick to the topic in hand, i.e., government involvment in personal matters.

Now, having said that, this also irritates the crap out of me on a personal level, but I also recognize that marriage is on a legal level contractual STATE law, and as such it is within the state's legal authority to modify or dictate said contractual law.

Now, to further clarify my position, the national government has ZERO authority to be involved in such things. Marriage, as contractual law, is solely the domain of the respective states.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Centinel

Originally posted by: conjur
But it's to protect the sanctity of marriage.

Two people that argue or fight or have no respect for each other (esp. in the case of infidelity) can surely be fixed in 4-6 months. All these people need is a little lovin' from Jesus.

Now why do you have to interject the religious tones? Why bring in religion? Why not just stick to the topic in hand, i.e., government involvment in personal matters.

Now, having said that, this also irritates the crap out of me on a personal level, but I also recognize that marriage is on a legal level contractual STATE law, and as such it is within the state's legal authority to modify or dictate said contractual law.

Now, to further clarify my position, the national government has ZERO authority to be involved in such things. Marriage, as contractual law, is solely the domain of the respective states.

You don't know Georgia very well, do you?

 

[Centinel]

I know Georgia very well. I live in the state next to it.

We are talking about state contractual law, not religion.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Centinel
I know Georgia very well. I live in the state next to it.

We are talking about state contractual law, not religion.

We're talking about state contractual law authored by a deeply religious person.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Centinel
I know Georgia very well. I live in the state next to it.

We are talking about state contractual law, not religion.

We're talking about state contractual law authored by a deeply religious person.

:thumbsup:

It's that seeping across the line of separation of church and state.

 

[Centinel]

Ever stop to think there was more motivation to the law than just religious beliefs?

 

[Centinel]

Conjur:

There will always be politicians that are religious.

So I guess now that if you are a christian you should not be allowed to be a politician?
Isnt that descrimination?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Centinel
Ever stop to think there was more motivation to the law than just religious beliefs?

Oh, I'm sure this Baptist Republican has social welfare at the heart of the matter.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Centinel
Ever stop to think there was more motivation to the law than just religious beliefs?

Perhaps, but I doubt it.

Either way, it's meddling and a bad idea. The last thing the kids he's trying to protect need is to live in a government-imposed pressure cooker for an extra 5 months.

 

[Centinel]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Centinel
Ever stop to think there was more motivation to the law than just religious beliefs?

Oh, I'm sure this Baptist Republican has social welfare at the heart of the matter.

Nice of you to lump all lawmakers and people from the south into one group. Stereotype much?

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Centinel

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Centinel
Ever stop to think there was more motivation to the law than just religious beliefs?

Oh, I'm sure this Baptist Republican has social welfare at the heart of the matter.

Nice of you to lump all lawmakers and people from the south into one group. Stereotype much?

Again, religion aside, this is a bad idea. Discuss.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Centinel

Originally posted by: conjur
But it's to protect the sanctity of marriage.

Two people that argue or fight or have no respect for each other (esp. in the case of infidelity) can surely be fixed in 4-6 months. All these people need is a little lovin' from Jesus.

Now why do you have to interject the religious tones? Why bring in religion? Why not just stick to the topic in hand, i.e., government involvment in personal matters.

Conjur seems unable to resist the urge to ridicule the religious at every opportunity.

 

[kage69]

So I guess now that if you are a christian you should not be allowed to be a politician?

Not at all, but is it too much to expect christian politicians to be able to keep their personal beliefs from seeping into their duties of office? For a great many of these politicians, unfortunetly the answer is 'yes'.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Centinel

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Centinel
Ever stop to think there was more motivation to the law than just religious beliefs?

Oh, I'm sure this Baptist Republican has social welfare at the heart of the matter.

Nice of you to lump all lawmakers and people from the south into one group. Stereotype much?

Isn't that the Republican way? The right-wing way? Personal responsibility before social welfare? Or, are you trying to tell me this Republican Baptist is now a liberal?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: kage69

So I guess now that if you are a christian you should not be allowed to be a politician?

Not at all, but is it too much to expect christian politicians to be able to keep their personal beliefs from seeping into their duties of office? For a great many of these politicians, unfortunetly the answer is 'yes'.

Kerry was able to separate the two.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Fausto

From AJC.com

"I've been married for 30 years and I believe in marriage, but people have a right to make a decision they can live with," said state Sen. Valencia Seay (D-College Park). "This bill is telling people how to run their personal lives. I don't think that's our duty."

If Democrats weren't so selective with that "Gov't shouldn't be involved in personal matters" business, I'd find them more credible. Take, for example, Social Security - why isn't it optional? If I choose to save most of my money for retirement, or none at all, isn't that my personal business? Why am I FORCED to take part in the gov't's system? I guess with the 'pro-choice' Democrats, choice only goes so far. The truth is, both parties meddle extensively in the private lives of citizens, they just do it in different ways.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Maybe they should make it harder to get married?

Good idea, but there's no reason involved-- just good ol' fashion zealotry.

My take: less federalism-- let the creationsists do what they want as long as they stop messing around with the Blue States of America.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Fausto

From AJC.com

"I've been married for 30 years and I believe in marriage, but people have a right to make a decision they can live with," said state Sen. Valencia Seay (D-College Park). "This bill is telling people how to run their personal lives. I don't think that's our duty."

If Democrats weren't so selective with that "Gov't shouldn't be involved in personal matters" business, I'd find them more credible. Take, for example, Social Security - why isn't it optional? If I choose to save most of my money for retirement, or none at all, isn't that my personal business? Why am I FORCED to take part in the gov't's system? I guess with the 'pro-choice' Democrats, choice only goes so far. The truth is, both parties meddle extensively in the private lives of citizens, they just do it in different ways.

Okay.?

 

[kage69]

Kerry was able to separate the two.

True enough, but an educated man who can't throw a football and doesn't have anything against gays and women's rights just isn't White House material. Duh.

 

[Centinel]

Ooo...trademarked!

Ugh..dont get me started on social security. :thumbsdown:

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I think 6 months is too long. 30 days may not be long enough. I have seen couples reconcile inside the waiting period before.

Texas has a 60 day waiting period, and that is long enough.