Pat Robertson Strikes Again

Why exactly is no-fault divorce a terrible thing?

Is it better to go to court and sling mud and drag each other through a painful process?

Or is the need to assign blame all important?

The rest of his statement just highlights the stupidity of the position.

Up to this minute, I was unaware of the awesome power of the Homosexual.

"...self-absorbed narcissists who are willing to destroy any institution so long as they can have affirmation of their lifestyle."

I could use those words to describe the faux-Christian far-right...not to mention the woman-bashers of the Taliban and WorldNutDaily!

Barely worth commenting on, the man is just too stupid and not worth paying attention to. Although, come to think of it, it is worth watching Ali-G's interview with Pat. It's priceless.

GH: I suppose the issue with no-fault divorce is that it might tend to make some folks think of marriage as a little less important to keep together. I understand the need to reduce the mud, but I can see where the opponents of no-fault divorce are coming from.

Pat Robertson, if you'll recall, explicitly said that the 9/11 attacks were a warning from God that the US should stop tolerating liberals, gays, lesbians, Pagans, etc. We don't remember him as "al Qaeda Pat" for nothing.

Oops! The interview with Ali-G is with Pat Buchanan, not Pat Robertson. Sorry. Very funny stuff, though.

Not to be contrary, I mean really?

'I suppose the issue with no-fault divorce is that it might tend to make some folks think of marriage as a little less important to keep together.'

Why would no-fault do that? When a marriage ends, it ends. I doubt many folks stay together so as not to avoid being blamed for the divorce and are these marriages that would be good for either party anyway.

I see divorce as a terrible life event, I would hate to have that happen to me and my wife. But I fail to see how tossing bombs after the fact would preserve or prevent anything.

But I guess I can see how making the hill a little harder to climb might make it harder for some to do. But does it actually make marriages any better?

It is ironic that the conservative icon Ronald Reagan, when he was governor of California, signed the first no-fault divorce law.

It is also ironic that the "Diamond" Pat Robertsons of the world claim that the miniscule numbers of gay people (they say 2%) will destroy their world.

It isn't going to happen. The fact is that these tactics by "Diamond" Pat Robertson are for nothing more than fund-raising. They have discovered that beating on gay people (the new n!gg@rs) is good for rattling money out of the rubes. That was noted about a decade ago in an article on Independent Gay Forum.

Reagan also signed the first law legalizing abortion in 1967.

John, thanks, I was not aware of that.

John and raj, please visit the California Planned Parenthood Affiliates website to get a timeline of the legalization of abortion in California. You need to be armed with a little information before you throw that line into an argument.

Ed, I hate to be severely off topic, but you might be interested in the following from the Southern Poverty Law Center that I saw on another forum:

Ron Wilson, the extremist former commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) Southern heritage group, now has a say in the approval of textbooks, curriculum, and school policy for hundreds of thousands of public school students in South Carolina.

Wilson's new authority comes thanks to a 4-3 vote by the state's Anderson County delegation, which elected him to the 17-member South Carolina Board of Education to replace a departing board member. Wilson, who has no college education....

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=533

I had some other comments, which I deleted for this posting.

jcw at August 18, 2005 07:11 PM

John and raj, please visit the California Planned Parenthood Affiliates website to get a timeline of the legalization of abortion in California.

If you know of a particular page in mind, it would be helpful if you would post a link to it. These issues regarding abortion are of minor matter to me, since I'm not going to get anyone pregnant anytime soon.

jcw at August 18, 2005 07:11 PM

Sorry, I suppose you are referring to

http://www.ppacca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuJYJeO4F&b=139490

Why exactly is no-fault divorce a terrible thing?

As near as I can tell, their reasoning works like this: Divorce is a sin. Sin must be punished. No-fault divorce takes away the punishment. Ergo, no-fault divorce is wrong.

The important thing for the Pat Robertsons of the world isn't that society is well-off, or that people on balance are as happy as possible. The important thing is that sinners get punished, even if doing so causes widespread misery.

You could prove to them that no-fault divorce has no effect on the divorce rate, and they wouldn't care. You could prove to them that no-fault divorce actually lowers the divorce rate, and they still wouldn't care. What they care about is making divorcees pay for their sins.

You can see this mind-set at work with issues like abstinance-only sex education. In their eyes, STDs and pregnancy are punishment for the sin of having premarital sex. Teaching kids about condoms and contraceptives makes it possible for them to commit the sin without receiving the punishment. Therefore, it must be stopped, even if by doing so you cause more disease, pregnancy, and even death. They are completely unfazed by studies showing that abstinence-only education hurts kids. The kids are supposed to be hurt, that's their penalty for sin.

Yeah Steve I guess that adds up.

It just seems to me that divorce hurts people enough without the state piling on. If people are worried about punishment, well, a divorce usually does enough of that on its own.

And many, many people are better off later in life for having experienced it.

raj,

My computer skills are not all that great. When I was at the site I was trying to figure out how to get the link posted. The comment section on this blog doesn't seem to let you use a link to go directly to the site. I'll figure it out eventually. Anyhow, I was trying to point out that it appears the abortion law that Reagan signed was not something that would be substantive in any kind of argument or debate. The timeline points out the changes in the law over the years.

It just seems to me that divorce hurts people enough without the state piling on.

True, but that's not pain the public can SEE. The punishment for "sin" has to be both merciless and visible to all.

I'm Christian and I don't believe this at all.

'The punishment for "sin" has to be both merciless and visible to all.'

Once forgiven it's gone. I think people who think like this are seriously in need of help. I see my beliefs as a comfort. I doubt the person I follow would have wanted anyone to suffer needlessly.

As near as I can tell, their reasoning works like this: Divorce is a sin. Sin must be punished. No-fault divorce takes away the punishment. Ergo, no-fault divorce is wrong.

It is possible that "no fault divorce" critics beleive that marriage is a sacred institution, a promise made before both god and civil authorities, and it should not be lightly put aside. If marriage is in fact a desirable social instituion, it's perfectly valid to make the argument that society should pass laws encouraging that instition to succeed, and making it difficult for that institution to fail.

In some ways it's easier to break a marriage contract than it is to get out of a leasing agreement contract. Just because someone feels that shouldn't be the case doesn't mean their only motive is to "punish sinners".

'In some ways it's easier to break a marriage contract than it is to get out of a leasing agreement contract'

I am skeptical of this statement. But again I ask to what benefit could it possibly be to keep a marriage together 'just because'. Likewise even if 'no fault' divorce didn't exist would the reality be any different. Seems like a dog chasing his own tail.

I think its a sacred institution also. It doesn't mean promises don't great broken and marriages fail. I fail to see how 'no-fault' provisions encourage marriages to fail or harsher divorce laws encourage them to succeed.

I mean is success staying married? Or being happy?

And is it necessarily bad to have happy people in society?

jcw at August 19, 2005 11:57 AM

My computer skills are not all that great. When I was at the site I was trying to figure out how to get the link posted.

I don't know what browser you're using. I use Internet Explorer, and here is what I do:

(I found the page via a google search, by the way)

I download the page. The URL for the page is in the address bar up above. I click or double click on the address bar (to get the address "selected'--when the address is selected, it is blue). Then I copy it (control-C) and paste it (control-V) to where I am composing my comment, which is usually Windows Notepad (which I'm using now).

After I have composed the comment in Notepad, I then copy and paste the entire comment into the little comment box on the web page. After it posts properly, if I can remember, I'll get rid of the Notepad instance. (I currently have 18 Notepad instances running, so I'm not really good at getting rid of them)

Two advantages:

No typos in the address (by using the copy and past method)

And if the web page is not quite reliable (as sometimes happens with the NYTimes gay rights board, for example) you still have the comment that you can post later.

BTW, it took me a while to figure this methodology out.

raj,

Thanks for the tips. After I read your original request I experimented and figured out that I could highlight the url in the address box and do the cut and paste. In some blogs the link is in blue and you can click on it and it takes you where you want to go. Any ideas how to do this? (My apologies to the computer savvy)

It is possible that "no fault divorce" critics beleive that marriage is a sacred institution, a promise made before both god and civil authorities, and it should not be lightly put aside.

Given that most people believe that, including myself, I'm sure there's more to it than this. I don't think marriage should be lightly put aside, but nor do I think the state should put roadblocks in place of people who mutually consent to end their relationships. This has no real social function and only serves to cause misery for the people involved.

If marriage is in fact a desirable social instituion, it's perfectly valid to make the argument that society should pass laws encouraging that instition to succeed, and making it difficult for that institution to fail.

By the time two people opt for divorce, the marriage has already failed. The idea that it can be made to succeed by forcing the couple into unwanted legal hassles is irrational. Even in cases where this can cause a couple to stay together unwillingly, the marriage is only being held together through coercion, not through the mutual love and companionship that makes marriage a desirable institution to begin with.

In some ways it's easier to break a marriage contract than it is to get out of a leasing agreement contract.

I too am skeptical of this. In general, it's a simple matter to void any contract by mutual consent of the parties involved. Now if one of the parties doesn't consent, it's a much different matter.

Just because someone feels that shouldn't be the case doesn't mean their only motive is to "punish sinners".

My opinion is based on watching Pat Robertson and his ilk in action. I don't pretend to have them all figured out, but it's become clear to me that their activism on matters such as divorce has little to do with what's best for either the specific people involved or for society as a whole. That's why evidence showing that their policies would (or do) hurt people is so glibly ignored or distorted. They adopt their position based first on moral absolutes, and only later do they proceed to rationalize it with twisted utilitarian arguments.

I am by no means a conservative Christian, but I must side with the critics of no-fault marriage. If marriage is indeed a contract sanctioned by the state (and I am sympathetic to arguments suggesting that the state should stay out of marriage), there should be incentives to stay within that contract. Going through a rough patch may make a divorce seem worthwhile, but rough patches come and go in a relationship. Human nature being as it is, people often do things on the spur of the moment without deeply thinking about it. My parents almost divorced about ten years ago, but they decided to work on their marriage instead and now they couldn't be happier. If happiness is the greatest good, then as a utilitarian you should recognize that delaying a little happiness now will bring greater happiness tomorrow.

"If happiness is the greatest good, then as a utilitarian you should recognize that delaying a little happiness now will bring greater happiness tomorrow."

Here, of course, I should have said:

"If happiness is the greatest good, then as a utilitarian you should recognize that delaying a little happiness now will often bring greater happiness tomorrow."

On the road for the last 11 weeks and to return to such a well-reasoned and polite discussion is most reassuring in the state of this nation right now. Thanks to all for keeping the spirit of discourse engaging and civil. wow.

There are two recent books on the subject of marriage that may help this discussion. Laura Kipnis, a professor at Northwestern University has written one called: AGAINST LOVE: A Polemic. You can surmise to some degree from the title that her history of marriage argues that these forms of unions have been better served through the needs and determinations of the society and culture as a whole and not through the modern liberalism of marriages generated from Love. It is interesting that the majority of the world's population today live in culture where marriages are arranged through social/economic processes. The other book, which takes a counter position is Stephanie Coontz's MARRIAGE, a HISTORY: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage. Coontz teaches at Evergreen State University out here in my region of the continent. Her work illuminates the influence of loving relations on the social constructs of marriage, and how our more modern "westernized" view has developed.

The benefits of these countering views is that neither really frame their discussions from the perspective of overarching religious controls(well other than to show the coercive influence of the Church during the Middle Ages in aiding and abetting various economic and political powers). I believe someone above pointed out that being armed with some knowledge is most useful. Well, learning the history of marriage as an institution across cultures and millenia is extraordinarily valuable and surprisingly enlightening.

Chuck at August 19, 2005 06:39 PM

I am by no means a conservative Christian, but I must side with the critics of no-fault marriage.

I'm confused. I've never heard of no-fault marriage before. I've heard of shot-gun weddings, but not no-fault marriage.

BTW, I agree with the rest of the post. My (same-sex) partner and I went through some rocky periods in the early and mid 1980s, and we've stayed together. And for most of that period we didn't have state-sanctioned marriage to bind us. Relationships can be difficult to maintain, but it is sometimes (often?) nice to maintain them.

And I'll only mention in passing E. J. Graf's book What Is Marriage For. An excerpt is provided at http://www.culturekitchen.com/archives/003025.html

Chuck--

Let me preface this by saying that I very much admire your posts here on Ed's blog. That said, I disagree with you here.

As I see it, being the liberal that I am, the government is well within its rights to encourage behaviors that are socially beneficial (this being something that your average libertarian would not agree with.) That's all cool with me.

For example, the government can encourage certain contracts (such as marriage) or offer encouragements to prevent same contracts from being voided. (This is not to say that such encouragements might not be bad policy.) However, I consider it extremely perverse anytime the government interferes with people who wish to void a contract through mutual consent. At that point, the government goes from being helpful (even if dumb) to being downright coercive.

If, for example, the government wants to give me $10,000 to get married, then I don't perceive that as a wrongful action by the government. (Though I think it would be a dumb and mostly useless thing for the goverment to do.) And if the government promised to pay me to stay married, then I would look at it the same way. However, once the government starts putting sacntions in place to make it more difficult to do something that myself and someone with whom I have a contract wish to do, then they're overreaching, to put it mildly. Trying to encourage something is one thing; trying to stop people from terminating a contract through mutual consent is boderline tyrannical. At this point, they are interferring with the contract. It's no worse than if they tried to throw up roadblocks to keep people from getting married in the first place. (Fun aside: A contract to get married is perfectly legal, no matter how perverse the stipulations; however, it must be in writing, unlike most contracts. A contract not to get married, on the other hand, is automatically void. Fancy that.)

So I cannot justify having the govenment make it more difficult than necessary when two people wish to void their marriage contract. Our culture maybey should, but that's another story.

As for your own situation, I'm all in favor of people trying to work it out, no matter how bad things might seem at the time. I'd rather the government keep its nose out of the matter though, given that this is quite possibly one of the most personal issues any two people might conceivably ever have to deal with. Just my two cents.

Chuck,

I appreciate your response, but think we are arguing from the wrong angle.

'If marriage is indeed a contract sanctioned by the state (and I am sympathetic to arguments suggesting that the state should stay out of marriage), there should be incentives to stay within that contract.'

Perhaps correct, but your are not providing an incentive to stay in a marriage. The people get divorcd whether there is no-fault or blame. All the alternative does is offer a punishment. It doesn't even make the process more prohibitive really.

'Going through a rough patch may make a divorce seem worthwhile, but rough patches come and go in a relationship.'

I don't think anyone would disagree with that aspect. But the majority of divorces aren't caused by 'rough' patches but rather actions or lack of a real functioning relationship.

'My parents almost divorced about ten years ago, but they decided to work on their marriage instead and now they couldn't be happier.'

No one would do anything but applaud this action. However, if they had chosen to divorce would one blaming the other in court make it any less of a divorce? Did that factor into them staying together-just the fact that neither wanted blamed?

'If happiness is the greatest good, then as a utilitarian you should recognize that delaying a little happiness now will bring greater happiness tomorrow.'

Yes, I think this is a good point. But in reality what of the woman who is beaten, the man whose wife leaves him, the couple who hasn't had sex in a decade. If they choose to divorce should the only action be to drag out the pain and blame the other.

I think the humane thing is to let people move and into a fresh start. I think ultimately no-fault may allow a few 'marriages' but in reality it probably has saved quite a few heartaches as well.

And I am a conservative Christian. :-)

Oh and spyder comments are really good. ut just because many in the world use arranged marriages and such doesn't mean that is a superior system.

Spyder,

Good recommendations...I'd also add Nancy Cott's Public Vows. It's an historical look at marriage in the United States, particularly the state's role in ordering marriage. It's particularly interesting on the relationship between gender, marriage, and citizenship.

I'm amused that someone would use "most of the rest of the world does it" (not counting Canada or Europe, anyway) as an argument for changing an American social institution, when I'm quite sure that if we were talking about, oh, imposing Islam via law, they'd say "Well, America's better than those countries which do it, and you'd only make America worse!"

I think they'd even be right; I think they'd also be right if they advanced that argument in this case.

The woman's name is Maggie Galleghar. She's an op-ed columnist over at Yahoo.com. She also appears in various newspapers and she's a nutter! She received 21K from the Bush admin. to "research" marriage issues (she was the other person involved in the Armstrong Williams payola scheme). She's Irish, she got away, he's black - he got the boot! And another interesting tibit - she pines on with the usual and unusal anti-gay sphew and ..... she's been married and divorced twice and she's Catholic to boot.

Here's her email address (MaggieBox2004@yahoo.com). This is the email she uses for you to contact her column.

Pushpak

Pushpak

she (Maggie Galleghar) pines on with the usual and unusal anti-gay sphew

That's for sure. Her only "claim to fame" is that she is a supposed conservative "marriage expert" when it is clear that her marriages failed. What kind of "expert" is that?

She's been on more than a few NPR programs in recent years, which is only one more reason as to why I discount much of anything on NPR.

Mike Signorile had a column lampooning her a few months ago.

It should be mentioned in the interests of fairness that a 'marriage expert' need not have had a successful marriage herself.

Maybe the next one is a charm?

:-)

I once read Gallagher -- years ago when I was growing up in NYC and her column was in the Post. I remember thinking that she looked like she was about 13 years old in the byline picture. I recall not thinking her columns were too bad -- innocuous at any rate -- in the beginning, but I do distinctively remember a hard jolting turn to the wingnut right at some point. At that point I just quit reading her. I didn't realize she was the one who got that money from the administration to support marriage.

Yuch.

GH at August 22, 2005 08:24 AM

It should be mentioned in the interests of fairness that a 'marriage expert' need not have had a successful marriage herself.

I'll pay attention to her if and when she has a successful realtionship, whether or not it ends in marriage. She hasn't had one.

I'll analogize it to Roman Catholic priests, who are prattling on about sex, while they're supposed to be celibate. There is something of a disconnect there. They are lecturing us about sex, while they're supposed to be celibate? It would be hilarious if it wasn't so dumb.

oolong at August 22, 2005 09:39 AM

I once read Gallagher -- years ago when I was growing up in NYC and her column was in the Post. I remember thinking that she looked like she was about 13 years old in the byline picture. I recall not thinking her columns were too bad -- innocuous at any rate -- in the beginning, but I do distinctively remember a hard jolting turn to the wingnut right at some point.

Probably the hard edge came when she was looking to be widely sindicated. The same thing was noted when "Dr. Laura" looked to be widely sindicated. The sindicator told her that, in order to succeed with the proposed target audience (right-wing christians), she would have to take on a hard edge, and she did. It eventually came back to haunt her, but it worked for a few years.

The interesting thing is, the last time I heard her here in Boston, her program was sponsored by conservative christian advertisers (including a conservative christian hair solon!), while she herself claims to be Jewish.

What I meant raj is that it is possible to be a marriage expert in the area of how it is done in various cultures without knowing diddly about it yourself.

As for Catholic priests does anyone really believe the majority of these fellas are actually celibate?

Whats funny about Catholic doctrine on marriage aside from the 'annulment' silliness is that modern scholars studying lanquage have realized that the Catolic version is being misapplied.

This is a religous doctrine that has hurt many people needlessly.

GH at August 22, 2005 04:17 PM

What I meant raj is that it is possible to be a marriage expert in the area of how it is done in various cultures without knowing diddly about it yourself.

Point taken, but that's not what she (Gallagher) prattles on about. If she were doing what you suggest, she would be a cultural anthropologist. or historian, not a so-called "marriage expert." What she prattles on about is not what is or has been, but instead what she believes ought to be in the US, and there is a big difference. I've heard her speak, by the way, so I know whereof I type. She's got a gig as a self-described "expert" and she's milking it as much as she can.

If you want exposure to a work by a marriage expert in your sense, you might seriously consider checking out E. J. Graff's book What Is Marriage For A description of the book is available at

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807041351/qid=1124777712/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-9780347-8480135?v=glance&s=books

Anytime Pat Robertson speaks, my head hurts.

Isn't a narcissist sel-absorbed by definition?