Do you believe people should be forced to remain married against their will?

[LBJer]

No.  This is an absolute no-brainer.  No one should be forced to stay married for ANY reason whatsoever.  It doesn't matter if an outsider doesn't think their reason for leaving the marriage is a good one or not--that's something that's solely for the person who's married and considering leaving to decide. 

[LBJer]

Marriage is an agreement people freely enter into; if they later want to get out of it, there is nothing onerous about making them demonstrate a justified reason. 

I would say not wanting to be married to someone anymore--for whatever reason--is its own justification. 

[LBJer]

No-fault divorce with kids involved is narcissistic hedonism. Make parents demonstrate good cause or wait until the kids are grown up.

Kids are gonna realize if their parents are unhappy and don't really want to be together.  That situation is not going to make them happy.  

[LBJer]

Dishonest poll.  Did New York State have "forced marriage" until 2010? 

It did, yes. Not sure what the argument otherwise would be

And having to demonstrate fault in divorce cases is not "forced marriage."  Marriage is an agreement people freely enter into; if they later want to get out of it, there is nothing onerous about making them demonstrate a justified reason.  You have to do the same to get out of rental leases, sales agreements, mortgages, employment contracts, etc.

Ideally, divorce should be processed as an adversarial civil action with one party having to demonstrate fault or culpability of the other.  There are many justified reasons for divorce - adultery, abandonment, felony, abuse, etc.  Judges need to hear these reasons and the totality of circumstances surrounding the dissolution of a marriage if they are going to fairly determine alimony, maintenance, property division, child custody, etc.   

You can generally get out of a contract if both parties mutually consent to termination, and you certainly don't need to show the state a reason. Why do you think the rules for divorce should be so radically different than the other types of agreement you listed?

But that generally isn't how divorce works.  No-fault divorces can be filed in most states by one spouse even if the other doesn't agree to it. 

And that's how it should be.  One spouse shouldn't be able to hold the other hostage. 

[LBJer]

No-fault divorce with kids involved is narcissistic hedonism. Make parents demonstrate good cause or wait until the kids are grown up.

Kids are gonna realize if their parents are unhappy and don't really want to be together.  That situation is not going to make them happy. 

How can this be true when all of the social science literature suggests kids from divorced/single-parent households have much worse outcomes than kids with married parents?  Marriage offers a whole suite of advantages to families for which state policy can never be a perfect substitute

Your argument is flawed because "married parents" includes happily as well as unhappily married parents. 

[LBJer]

Dishonest poll.  Did New York State have "forced marriage" until 2010? 

It did, yes. Not sure what the argument otherwise would be

And having to demonstrate fault in divorce cases is not "forced marriage."  Marriage is an agreement people freely enter into; if they later want to get out of it, there is nothing onerous about making them demonstrate a justified reason.  You have to do the same to get out of rental leases, sales agreements, mortgages, employment contracts, etc.

Ideally, divorce should be processed as an adversarial civil action with one party having to demonstrate fault or culpability of the other.  There are many justified reasons for divorce - adultery, abandonment, felony, abuse, etc.  Judges need to hear these reasons and the totality of circumstances surrounding the dissolution of a marriage if they are going to fairly determine alimony, maintenance, property division, child custody, etc.   

You can generally get out of a contract if both parties mutually consent to termination, and you certainly don't need to show the state a reason. Why do you think the rules for divorce should be so radically different than the other types of agreement you listed?

But that generally isn't how divorce works.  No-fault divorces can be filed in most states by one spouse even if the other doesn't agree to it. 

And that's how it should be.  One spouse shouldn't be able to hold the other hostage. 

Should a landlord be able to hold a tenant hostage?  One party cannot initiate termination of a lease agreement without cause.  Why should marriage be any different? 

I find this argument rather absurd.  An agreement to stay married to someone for the rest of your life is not, by its very nature, a normal agreement.  It's quite different in what it entails than a landlord/tenant or any similar agreement.  I shouldn't even have to explain why.

[LBJer]

No-fault divorce with kids involved is narcissistic hedonism. Make parents demonstrate good cause or wait until the kids are grown up.

Kids are gonna realize if their parents are unhappy and don't really want to be together.  That situation is not going to make them happy. 

How can this be true when all of the social science literature suggests kids from divorced/single-parent households have much worse outcomes than kids with married parents?  Marriage offers a whole suite of advantages to families for which state policy can never be a perfect substitute

You're never going to get the anti-family crowd to acknowledge the selfishness of no-fault divorce. Most people these days are all-in on the idea that "growing apart" is a fair reason for destroying a family and forcing children to adjust to life in a broken home while navigating the already difficult experience of growing up.

You and DT don't seem to grasp that just because you believe something is morally wrong doesn't necessarily mean you have a moral right to use the law to force that belief on others. 

[LBJer]

No-fault divorce with kids involved is narcissistic hedonism. Make parents demonstrate good cause or wait until the kids are grown up.

Kids are gonna realize if their parents are unhappy and don't really want to be together.  That situation is not going to make them happy.  

How can this be true when all of the social science literature suggests kids from divorced/single-parent households have much worse outcomes than kids with married parents?  Marriage offers a whole suite of advantages to families for which state policy can never be a perfect substitute

You're never going to get the anti-family crowd to acknowledge the selfishness of no-fault divorce. Most people these days are all-in on the idea that "growing apart" is a fair reason for destroying a family and forcing children to adjust to life in a broken home while navigating the already difficult experience of growing up.

You and DT don't seem to grasp that just because you believe something is morally wrong doesn't necessarily mean you have a moral right to use the law to force that belief on others.  

What else is even the point of the law, human society, etc. than to enforce and uphold a collectively held set of moral beliefs and attitudes?  

But the majority opinion isn't always right.  Some things should be left up to the individual.  Otherwise, how can we even claim to believe in personal liberty?

And I find this whole argument about divorce being "emotionally damaging"--whether to children or anyone else--to be downright pathetic.  We've gone to war--and killed many innocent bystanders (including children) in the process--for things much less tangible that the right to have or not have consensual relationships/marriages of one's choosing.  

[LBJer]

But the majority opinion isn't always right.  Some things should be left up to the individual.  Otherwise, how can we even claim to believe in personal liberty?

This is itself a moral judgment.  I thought you said the law wasn't supposed to enforce morality?

Ah yes, there's no right more precious than the right to oppress other people...

[LBJer]

I also think it's quite disturbing that so many Republicans on this forum, who on average are more moderate than non atlas Republicans, support "forcing people to remain married against their will" because that tells me a huge number of non atlas Republicans support that and worse.

Agreed, but considering the number that had no problem with Donald Trump taking children away from their parents, it shouldn't be surprising.