4 ms·

Divorce is a legal process for ending a civil marriage. It should be easy to accomplish for those interested in doing so. There's no point in instituting roadbl

Divorce is a legal process for ending a civil marriage. It should be easy to accomplish for those interested in doing so. There's no point in instituting roadblocks for the sake of preserving a union, especially when its constituents despise each other.

XorNot 4y ago
More importantly it's not the state's business to override the desires of citizens to end a domestic partnership. For some reason Americans in particular who won't shut up about "my freedoms" completely forget about it when the opportunity to play relationship counselling at gunpoint comes up.
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  > More importantly it's not the state's business to override the desires of citizens to end a domestic partnership. That's just the liberal view. There are alternatives. > For some reason Americans in particular who won't shut up about "my freedoms" completely forget about it when the opportunity to play relationship counselling at gunpoint comes up. Well, they also don't shut up about family values. You can value more than one thing.
- skissane 4y ago
  > More importantly it's not the state's business to override the desires of citizens to end a domestic partnership. There is significant evidence that divorce frequently has long-term (indeed, life-long) negative impacts on children. A recent meta-analysis [0] concluded that: > A significant association between parental divorce and every aspect of mental health was found with the following pooled ORs (95% CIs): Depression 1.29 (1.23–1.35), anxiety 1.12 (1.04–1.12), suicide attempt 1.35 (1.26–1.44), suicidal ideation 1.48 (1.43–1.54), distress 1.48 (1.37–1.6), alcohol 1.43 (1.34–1.53), smoking 1.64 (1.57–1.72) and drugs 1.45 (1.44–1.46) could be estimated... The results of the meta-analysis show a consistent direction of influence regarding the long-term effect of parental divorce on their children. Individuals affected by parental divorce have a higher risk of developing a variety of mental health conditions... Another study on this topic (of which there are numerous) [1] says: > Controlling for age, race/ethnicity, gender, and childhood socioeconomic position, respondents who recalled a parental divorce during childhood had increased risk of mortality compared to those with no separation. The association was stronger for premature mortality and deaths due to cardiovascular disease. Divorce in childhood was also associated with lowered adult education, fewer social network ties, more depression, and worse health practices... Parental divorce in childhood is associated with lowered well-being in adulthood and long-term survival... Given the well-established reality of the potential life-long negative impacts of divorce on children–which, as a child of divorce myself, I see as not just something established by research, but also supported by my own life experiences–why doesn't the state have a legitimate interest in discouraging couples with children from pursuing divorce for insufficiently weighty reasons? [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022395619304510?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00223... [1] https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0373-x https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0373-x
  - XorNot 4y ago
    Because it's the state using it's monopoly on violence to interfere with the intimate lives of private citizens. The government doesn't have a right to tell you which consenting adults you can be in a relationship with or have sex with, which is what interfering with divorce is trying to do. If the state wants to protect children, then it can focus it's efforts on that and maybe start by not trying to force people who don't get along to live in the same house - again - by it's monopoly on violence. At gunpoint.
    - cato_the_elder 4y ago
      > Because it's the state using it's monopoly on violence > At gunpoint. You could say that about almost all functions of the government. Not the least because it's almost entirely funded by taxes, which are collected "at gunpoint". > If the state wants to protect children, then it can focus it's efforts on that Because there are other ways to protect children, that doesn't mean stable families shouldn't a social policy goal.
    - skissane 4y ago
      > Because it's the state using it's monopoly on violence Divorce is itself an instance of the state’s “monopoly on violence”. A state agent (a judge) will decide on issues such as property and custody, and then the state’s “monopoly on violence” will be used to enforce that judicial decision. “At gunpoint” even. Or else, the parties may reach an agreement, a settlement - coerced by the threat of a judge deciding it if they don’t - and then the “state’s monopoly on violence” will be used to enforce that agreement, and in particular the state’s interpretation of it. Frequently, divorce is forced by the state’s threat of violence on an unwilling spouse. I saw with my own adolescent eyes how my mother used the state’s monopoly of violence to force divorce on my father even when he didn’t want it, and when he was the victim of her adultery-a fact about which the state chose not to care. My father was the victim-and I believe that my siblings and I are victims of her adultery too-my mother the perpetrator-and the state used its monopoly of violence to help her in victimising us. And while I never saw a gun in the whole sorry saga, state agents with guns were only ever a phone call away.
cato_the_elder 4y ago
> There's no point in instituting roadblocks for the sake of preserving a union, especially when its constituents despise each other. There is. To prevent ephemeral emotions from breaking the bond. Obviously, if the couple genuinely despise each other, there's no point in making them live together. But societal barriers to divorce serve a real purpose.

XorNot 4y ago

More importantly it's not the state's business to override the desires of citizens to end a domestic partnership. For some reason Americans in particular who won't shut up about "my freedoms" completely forget about it when the opportunity to play relationship counselling at gunpoint comes up.

cato_the_elder 4y ago
> More importantly it's not the state's business to override the desires of citizens to end a domestic partnership. That's just the liberal view. There are alternatives. > For some reason Americans in particular who won't shut up about "my freedoms" completely forget about it when the opportunity to play relationship counselling at gunpoint comes up. Well, they also don't shut up about family values. You can value more than one thing.
skissane 4y ago
> More importantly it's not the state's business to override the desires of citizens to end a domestic partnership. There is significant evidence that divorce frequently has long-term (indeed, life-long) negative impacts on children. A recent meta-analysis [0] concluded that: > A significant association between parental divorce and every aspect of mental health was found with the following pooled ORs (95% CIs): Depression 1.29 (1.23–1.35), anxiety 1.12 (1.04–1.12), suicide attempt 1.35 (1.26–1.44), suicidal ideation 1.48 (1.43–1.54), distress 1.48 (1.37–1.6), alcohol 1.43 (1.34–1.53), smoking 1.64 (1.57–1.72) and drugs 1.45 (1.44–1.46) could be estimated... The results of the meta-analysis show a consistent direction of influence regarding the long-term effect of parental divorce on their children. Individuals affected by parental divorce have a higher risk of developing a variety of mental health conditions... Another study on this topic (of which there are numerous) [1] says: > Controlling for age, race/ethnicity, gender, and childhood socioeconomic position, respondents who recalled a parental divorce during childhood had increased risk of mortality compared to those with no separation. The association was stronger for premature mortality and deaths due to cardiovascular disease. Divorce in childhood was also associated with lowered adult education, fewer social network ties, more depression, and worse health practices... Parental divorce in childhood is associated with lowered well-being in adulthood and long-term survival... Given the well-established reality of the potential life-long negative impacts of divorce on children–which, as a child of divorce myself, I see as not just something established by research, but also supported by my own life experiences–why doesn't the state have a legitimate interest in discouraging couples with children from pursuing divorce for insufficiently weighty reasons? [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022395619304510?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00223... [1] https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0373-x https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0373-x
- XorNot 4y ago
  Because it's the state using it's monopoly on violence to interfere with the intimate lives of private citizens. The government doesn't have a right to tell you which consenting adults you can be in a relationship with or have sex with, which is what interfering with divorce is trying to do. If the state wants to protect children, then it can focus it's efforts on that and maybe start by not trying to force people who don't get along to live in the same house - again - by it's monopoly on violence. At gunpoint.
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    > Because it's the state using it's monopoly on violence > At gunpoint. You could say that about almost all functions of the government. Not the least because it's almost entirely funded by taxes, which are collected "at gunpoint". > If the state wants to protect children, then it can focus it's efforts on that Because there are other ways to protect children, that doesn't mean stable families shouldn't a social policy goal.
  - skissane 4y ago
    > Because it's the state using it's monopoly on violence Divorce is itself an instance of the state’s “monopoly on violence”. A state agent (a judge) will decide on issues such as property and custody, and then the state’s “monopoly on violence” will be used to enforce that judicial decision. “At gunpoint” even. Or else, the parties may reach an agreement, a settlement - coerced by the threat of a judge deciding it if they don’t - and then the “state’s monopoly on violence” will be used to enforce that agreement, and in particular the state’s interpretation of it. Frequently, divorce is forced by the state’s threat of violence on an unwilling spouse. I saw with my own adolescent eyes how my mother used the state’s monopoly of violence to force divorce on my father even when he didn’t want it, and when he was the victim of her adultery-a fact about which the state chose not to care. My father was the victim-and I believe that my siblings and I are victims of her adultery too-my mother the perpetrator-and the state used its monopoly of violence to help her in victimising us. And while I never saw a gun in the whole sorry saga, state agents with guns were only ever a phone call away.

cato_the_elder 4y ago

> There's no point in instituting roadblocks for the sake of preserving a union, especially when its constituents despise each other. There is. To prevent ephemeral emotions from breaking the bond. Obviously, if the couple genuinely despise each other, there's no point in making them live together. But societal barriers to divorce serve a real purpose.