Capitol Ideas

By CaSandra Minichiello

January 20, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this

No, I don’t believe there should be an extended waiting period for a divorce. This means that it could take at least 4 months to have matters like child support and custody resolved. Not everyone is fortunate enough to get an emergency hearing to decide matters on a temporary basis. Waiting, can cause a lot of anxiety for the whole family. I believe there should be a longer waiting period before you can GET married. There should be classes before marriage and before divorce. Any couple considering marriage should also spend a day in family court watching the horrors of divorce. Marriage is not something that should be taken lightly.

By A. Stamatovich

January 20, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this

NO! The government should STOP interfering in the private lives of citizens. If the government would spend a little more time attending to issues of importance to all of society (crime, education, healthcare), and less time tyring to intrude on our private lives, things would be a whole lot better. I thought Republicans were about LESS government!!??!?!?!?!?

By M

January 20, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this

A great idea! A year or longer would be better! Why are we unindated with divorce? It is too easy to get divorced! A better option is the contract marraige! Make it harder to get married and harder to get out of a marraige and the divorce rate will plummet! Make a very narrow list of exceptions, abuse, alcohol or drugs and adultry!

By Beatriz

January 20, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this

I agree with CaSandra that government should stay out of our lives. How do they know what the dynamics of the divorcing couple? I knew someone who had been waiting and waiting to get a hearing and all that has happened is that she was going bankrupt paying her lawyer while she waited. Pretty soon she could not afford to pay her mortgage on her house or her other bills because a permanent decision on support could not be made until the divorce was final. Stop meddling in things that are none of your business!! The children are suffering more by dragging things out. If it’s over, it’s over. A few more months is not going to make a bit of difference if the couple have already made up their minds that there will be no reconciliation.

By Liz

January 20, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

Personally I think there should be a constitutional amendment banning divorce … NO exceptions. All divorced people should be required to go back to their original spouses. After all, marriage is sacred, right?

By AKD

January 20, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this

Lawmakers, deal with more important issues like public utilities, taxes, illegal immigration, overcrowding of schools, and higher wages or special allowances for state workers.

And stop wasting your time and our money on issues like divorce and sweet tea (http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2003_04/fulltext/hb819.htm).

What’s next some idiotic law that requires the Braves, Falcons, Thrasher, Force, Hawks, Gladiators, and countless other professional and college teams to all win championships next year?

You ladies and gentlemen really have too much time on your hands.

By AKD

January 20, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this

Lawmakers, deal with more important issues like public utilities, taxes, illegal immigration, overcrowding of schools, and higher wages or special allowances for state workers.

And stop wasting your time and our money on issues like divorce and sweet tea ([http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2003_04/fulltext/hb819.htm]).

What’s next some idiotic law that requires the Braves, Falcons, Thrasher, Force, Hawks, Gladiators, and countless other professional and college teams to all win championships next year?

You ladies and gentlemen really have too much time on your hands.

By Something's Phishy

January 20, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

I also agree that a longer waiting period to GET married would be better than a longer waiting period for divorce.

People should not take marriage lightly and should get counseling beforehand. I wish I had — it probably wouldn’t have changed my decision to marry my spouse, but I think we both certainly would have benefited by learning more about each other and our expectations from the union.

By John

January 20, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

This is a great opportuninty for some country bumpkin hillbillies to force their assbackwards views on the personal lives of Georgians. I think they should just outlaw divorce, abortion, and women’s rights in general. In fact women should be owned, like a pet. They do what they’re told, and shut up about it!

By Marge

January 20, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this

Having been married, and divorced. I think they should make Marriages harder to get. Getting married was easy… but should my ex and I have gotten married? It was a violent relationship… should there be background checks in place? should there be a waiting period before one gets married?

By James

January 20, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this

Liz when that rock fell from the sky and hit you on the head, was it a direct hit or a defelected one? You suggest a constitutional amendment to ban divorce. So, you’re saying to the woman who gets beaten by her husband that they should just stick it out. Or, to the man who finds out his wife is having one affair after the other, they should just ride it out. The government should just back off on this one, two adults should decide if they want to remain together. My parents stayed together ‘for the kids’ and it was a violent, terrible marriage and the kids they stayed together for in many discussions have said over and over how we wished they would have divorced and we would have all been better off. If you’re serious Liz, which I knid of doubt you are, you’re the Idiot of the Day.

By Sara

January 20, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this

This proposed ‘law’ had to be thought up by some bonehead male who thinks the Taliban was too liberal of a religion. Thank-you fellow Georgian, whomever you are…you just gave the Banjo Boy in Deliverence someone to intellectually condesend to. Try forcing two adults who hate each other and are abusive to remain in that situation. Can you imagine the frustration level and the potential for violence here? What we should do is to require a test and a license to procreate and have kids. Far too many people who have the no parenting skills or means to provide for their offspring are popping out babies like biscuits from the oven and expecting my tax dollar to raise them. If you want to ban something, ban marriage all together, not divorce.

By NLE

January 20, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this

YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE MORALITY. It is impossible to MAKE people be moral and who is to be the standard bearer? However, if the Legislature is bound and determined to stick their noses into their constituant’s personal lives, then Marge is the only one with a good suggestion. Rather than hold a couple to a possibly hideous mistake, make it more difficult for people to get married in the first place. And while we’re at it, let’s just create more bureaucracy and require a Federal background check for both parties. Let’s really get intrusive and require Federal marriage licenses and registration with the newly created Department of Home-based Security. They would have to register any children and if they ever decide to get a divorce, both parents could be Fedeally traced for child support. Come to think of it, let’s require that everyone wear ankle bracelets with GPS tracking. Then, we’ll even be able to track where and when they cheat. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

An unbelievable waste of our tax dollars in action.

By Liz

January 20, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

James - get a grip. I was using extreme sarcasm to make a point about the hypocracy of people who defend the “sanctity of marriage.” I don’t think goverment should be involved in marriage at all, it’s a private matter between adults.

By Chele

January 20, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

This is a case of too little too late. What needs to be done is the make it harder to get married in this country. Maybe if people actually had to go to some sessions BEFORE getting married on what it means to be legally married, how a divorce would affect them financially and in terms of child custody and how to have a successful, “til death do us part” marriage then less couples would actually take the plunge, hence, less divorces and broken homes.

By Josh

January 20, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

Liz,

The marriage being discussed here is a legal contract between two people—not the same as the sacred vows people make before one another, their god(s), and their families. That is the biggest problem with all this ridiculous marriage legislation (this bill and the much larger debate of gay marriage): it’s not a religious issue; it’s a legal issue! All gay couples (and non-religious straight couples) want is the ability to visit their partner in the hospital if they’re ill, file joint income tax returns, and automatically inherit the partner’s property when that person dies. The sanctity of the religious union (which is the one that generally holds much more meaning for religious people) has never been in danger because the churches have always been and should always be in control of who can and cannot engage in those unions. Leave religious influence out of what are legal arrangements between two people: marriage/civil unions and divorce.

By Liz

January 20, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

Josh - I agree with you 100% on that. What I find hypocritical is that people want to deny the civil rights of marriage to some based on arbitrary religious values. Arbitrary because they choose a definition of marriage that is quite modern and different from the purpose and structure of marriage 2000 years ago. And yet these same people who claim that marriage is a sacred and unchanging institution, accept (and often participate themselves) in divorce, which conflicts with those very same values!

By Reality Check

January 20, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

I lead a divorce recovery support group through my church. On average it takes people about 1 and a half years to get through the legal process on average. During this time both parties are going through hell on earth while the lawyers goad them on to escalate conflict and drive up their legal fees.

Undoubtedly the legislator who is proposing this is a lawyer. Or maybe he is just an idiot. Probably both.

By John Burningham

January 20, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

We really need to revise our marriage and divorce laws. I propose a LEARNER’s Permit, good for one year; it would automatically expire at the end of one year unless both parties have converted it to a regular marriage license. Divorce waiting periods should not be changed just because there are children involved.

By James

January 20, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this

Okay Liz, like I said…IF you’re serious. I agree that this is part of the gay marraige thing and big government. We live next to a same sex male couple and I can’t imagine anything they do being any of my business, nor can I imagine why the law in our country will not allow them some sort of legal rights to be partners or married, whatever wording you want to use. To anyone who says God made marriage this or that way, or that He intended this or that in regards to marriage just when did you get that call from God, and how did He communicate and just how many voices are you hearing?

By Melissa Griffin

January 20, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

I believe it should be mandated that prior to getting married and/or divorced we impliment a 30 day seperation period during which we must all attend at least 4 sessions of spiritul counseling the same way they require criminal offenders to do. This will give each party an opportunity to really sort out there feelings, calm down if they are angry, heal if they have been hurt and forgive so that they are not making a decision out of bitterness which we all know that decisions made out of anger and bitterness are most always wrong. For, I feel it is a criminal offense to marry and divorce and destroy a family. Whether you have children or not. I don’t get it are you saying a couple that do not have children for whatever reason is not a family. The marriage is consimated through intercouse not children. Also, you have men & women who become step parents to previous children they come to love them like they are there own. What about that!!! It’s always been amazing to me how you plan a marriage (wedding) for years, you send out invitation and invite everybody who means anything to you. But, you plan the divorce in one moment and invite an attorney…Huh, interesting. You don’t send out any notices to friends, you don’t call the family together and assign responsibilities. Marriage is not about YOU!!! It’s not about what you want, it’s not about your happiness, it’s not about your feelings, It’s not about your promise to your husband or wife it’s about the covenant you make to GOD. So, do you always make promises to GOD that you don’t keep? Marriage is outside of the world that is why so many in “THE WORLD” are getting it wrong. The world almanac doesn’t even track marriage or divorce in California and I think we both know why. Don’t we? Don’t get married if you are unable to commit to forever. It’s not for the selfish or the “I” people of the world. It’s not about choice…there is no other choice left for you make beyond the “I DO” from that point all you have to do is submit to will of GOD not or yourself. Let Go and Let GOD!!! It’s time to do something about this now…Save Family And You’ll Save The World.

By Dick

January 20, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

NO NO NO If I had to wait 4 months before my divorce was final, some one could have been killed.Length of time being extended is mainly for lawyers benefits, more time, more money. I say again, instead of lengthing the time for divorce, why don’t our educated, intelligent, filled with morals and ethics legislature do something about medicare and medicaid fraud, illegal immigrants, stupid lawsuits, run away taxes. Here is a thought (thinking like politican now) if one is caught not wearing their seat belt in a pickup truck (discussed Thursday in blog) , an additional 4 weeks is added to the date of final divorce. I sure wish my elected officials would come back home and close the capital of Georgia.

By Dick Newbern

January 20, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

I support Senator Seabaugh’s bill. Marriage is sacred. A family is the best place for children to be raised.Divorce only allows irresponsible fathers to avoid their responsibilities.We live in a “divorce culture” where adults demand their individual pleasure at the expense of children and society. Divorce should be made much more difficult. Then, over the course of four months, perhaps the couple might patch things up, rather than become another divorce statistic.

By barb

January 20, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

Mellissa, who said I made a promise to GOD? Ever hear of a civil union? Not everyone is married in church. If you got married in church your pastor should council you if you have problems, not the government! Divorce doesn’t happen in 30 days,thats just the filing period. My divorce took 7 years to happen! It is simply noone elses business!

By Felix

January 20, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

Absolutely not…by the time you get to a divorce stage the marriage is over with anyway. Usually by this time you have tried everything you can to save the marriage.I do not believe in divorce,but do not aggrevate the situation any longer.

By Robbie

January 20, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

I am happily married but in my opinion this is absurd. Why should the government get involved with any one’s personal life? Being together for four months just prolongs the fighting and bitterness. As for the class,thats an even bigger joke. Any lawmaker in my district who voted for this can count on me voting against them.

By Steve

January 20, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

Absolutely not. What interest does government have in making people stay married for three more months? It usually takes over a year to get divorced after a separation anyway. What a silly waste of government resources.

By red

January 20, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

I agree with Felix. I also wonder how many already divorced couples can say that waiting 4 more months would have made a difference.

By Steve

January 20, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

Absolutely not. What interest does government have in making people stay married for three more months? It usually takes over a year to get divorced after a separation anyway. What a silly waste of government resources. Typical politician, grandstanding with the “I love families, Jesus, and puppies more than you” schtick.

By Melissa

January 20, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

WOW, once again the gov. just can’t stay out of our personal lives!! What a bunch of hypocrits!!

By red

January 20, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

By JCC

January 20, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

I knew this was coming down the pike. First they ban gays from marrying, then they will ban divorce, then they will tell you how to raise your children, ho wto dress, when to pray… very soon this state and country will be run as a religious theocracy and not the democracy we are fighting for in places like Iraq.

By Sara

January 20, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

Hey religious freaks and big gevernment heads, all that a law like this will do will encourage more and more people to just blow off marriage all together and live together unmarried and then you all can run around saying everyone is now shacking up. You’re cutting off your nose to spite your face here. No law will make me stay with anyone when I don’t want to and I would fight it all the way to the Supreme Court and I bet I would win.

By The Reverand

January 20, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

As a pastor, I do think couples who are married should strive to do all they can to avoid going through a divorce and salvage a broken marriage, if possible. I think this is especially true when kids are involved. The effects of a divorce on children can last a lifetime.

As a person who has gone through divorce and remarried, I know that some marriages are unsalvagable, and it is best for all parties to be able to move on with their lives as quickly as possible. If the marriage is terminal, waiting four months will only put the family through more uncertainty and conflict. A couple can always delay their proceedings for four months or as long as they want if there is hope for their marriage, but the government should not dictate something like this.

By Jack

January 20, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

Mitch “I know what’s best for everyone else” Seabaugh needs to get out of the legislating morality business. Unfortunately he is the state senator for my district and rather than concentrate on trying to improve the district he chooses to jump into his bully pulpit and try to tell all the people of Georgia how to live their lives. I think that he should relocate to Virginia and become a morality advisor to Robertson and Falwell.

By Billy Slocumb

January 20, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

When will government’s interference in people’s personal life end? With every new law they pass, we are becoming more and more like a police state. Couples who want to get married can’t, and now those that want to legally seperate have to jump through countless hoops to do so.
People who want to die peacefully through the help of doctor assisted suicide can’t because of the Bush Adminstration’s interference with their personal decisions. When Bush was Governor of Texas, people were begging for their life on death row, (some were possibly wrongly convicted) and as far as he was concerned the switch couldn’t be flipped soon enough. I’m sure that’s what Jesus would have done, though. Actions of a true “Christian”.

By Josh

January 20, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

Dick Newburn,

Aside from the fact that it’s debatable that a child growing up with two people who hate each other (parents who should never have been married in the first place), if families are the best place to raise children, why don’t we just make it illegal for unmarried women to have children? (Note sarcasm). Do you not comprehend that the only marriage the government has any control over is a legal arrangement between two individuals—not the sacred religious vows people make in a church/synagogue/temple ceremony? The religious leaders have always had control over the sanctity of their particular marriage sacraments and have (up til now) never had any direct control of how the government treats that union. This whole “sacred marriage” argument is preposterous for that very reason. If the religious right hadn’t hijacked the Republican Party with proposals like this, I’d probably be a Republican. As it stands, they’ve completely lost touch with their original platform of fiscal conservatism (hardly what the current administration has been exercising) and smaller government.

By Bob

January 20, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

Talk about a proposed stupid law. Any cop will tell you there is no worse situation to go into than a domestic fight. This will encourage domestic abuse. Why do some people insist on running the lives of others? We go to other countries to overthrow totalltarian governments and simultaneously embark on imposing on here. When do we stop? This is insane but so are the people saying this is good.

By Sara

January 20, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

Someone needs to remind the Village Idiot in the White House and the ones here that Republicans are supposed to be less government, not more. But, that shoiuld hold true for big spending and border control.

By Don A

January 20, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

I agree with the comments stating that the G Assembly should leave well enough alone. It makes me wonder what bills are being rammed or snuck through that our illustrious press is missing while concentrating on these issues. Appears to be a decoy to me……..

By KATHLEEN

January 20, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

Hey Sara! You might not win if Alito gets on the Supreme Court bench (what a scary thought du jour!). Trust me, being the daughter of two parents who divorced (one parent who divorced TWICE) and having 1 cousin and 3 friends who have gone through some NASTY divorces (are any of them ever NICE?!), they ALL have told me that the sooner you can get the whole thing over with, the better for all parties involved. Good reason to go to Vegas for these things!

Regarding the license to be a parent, know what you mean about ignoramuses popping out kids left and right. As one of the most technologically advanced countries on the planet, how about we scrap the abstinence bull (which does NOT work!—trust me, I’ve worked in public health for 12 years now) and work more on educating people on contraceptive use and availability and have the cajones to fire these nut-job pharmacists who won’t fill prescriptions for birth control pills and emergency contraception? Personally, I think DepoProvera should be on the childhood vaccination schedule starting at age 9 and going through age 30!

By Tim

January 20, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

As a gay man who can’t get married, all I can say is ha ha ha ha ha.

By steve

January 20, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

why?

By Erica

January 20, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

Question:What has a longer wait time, buying a gun or getting a divorce?

By Sara

January 20, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

Tim come on now….gays need the right to be as miserably married as anyone else. I think this law was proposed by men who realize this last ditch effort is the only way they can keep their women in chains and shackels at home (and not the kind you buy at Inserections)what is next…mandatory global tracking devices inserted in women?

By Paul

January 20, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

Maybe instead of making it harder to get a divorce, we should make it harder to get married.

By C.P.

January 20, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

How would extending a divorce waiting period make an already touchy situation better? Four additional months & a 3 hr class isn’t likely to change the mind of someone wanting out of a bad relationship.

By Jim

January 20, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

The comment by A. Stamatovich was on target-if the Republicans would spend as much time controlling the problem of ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION in this state as they do in the people’s personal affairs, I would have a higher regard for them.

By Carrie

January 20, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

Obviously, anyone who would support this or support forcing two people to stay married has never lived in a house with two parents who are miserable with each other and just shouldn’t be married. The daily fights and the air of constant tension is a GREAT environment for raising children.

For the people who want to monitor and limit reproduction……so we are now okay with government funded abortion and government regulated sterilization? Will you be okay with it if it is determined that you carry a gene that MIGHT cause your child to have a birth defect so no kids for you?

For Tim….it looks like you guys get the last laugh:)

Finally, do any of you sanctimonious and/or judgemental Christians (not all Christians -just the sanctimonious and judgemental ones) ever REALLY ask yourselves what Jesus would do?

By Renee

January 20, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

Tim too funny…..Government needs to stay out of private citizens lives. Point blank. If people don’t take marriage seriously, who says they have to. Good grief.

By julien

January 20, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

I will make sure and volunteer to work on the campaign of any candidates who oppose any politicians trying to involve themselves in the personal lives of their constituents. This is outrageous!

By Tim

January 20, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

Seems like it would just encourage people to live in sin and become fornicators.

I wonder what the divorce rate in the General Assembly is, hmmm ?

By Carrie

January 20, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

I think someone already mentioned this, but it does seem like these are decoy issues to keep us from noticing the legislation that will get passed and actually affect our day to day lives.

By Melissa

January 20, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

Barb,

In response to your dabated message…That is divorce (In the World)to seek someone else’s assistance with getting out of something you got into all by yourself. Isn’t that what divorce attorney’s are in business to do. So, it’s noone else’s business huh. If it’s noone else’s business why do we have weddings and invite people to share in our special day? Why? That’s what I don’t get adults should have the maturity to work through this without all the strife. If we are honest with ourselves that is really what we fear the most from government involvement. We fear being forced to be adult and not being allowed to have a tantrum like a ten year old because everything is not going our way. People are so compromising, accommodating and sweet when they get married, go on there honeymoon, have children then suddenly they’re ready to battle to the finish for what….Pride! That’s where the destruction lives and why Divorce goes so much against what GOD is and stands for…God is love so is marriage. Divorce is not!!!

Civil Union was created by man just like GOD and Church being separate was introduced by man along with the Ten Commandments being removed from Court Houses. It was done for Sinners convenience.

Also, everyone is married in Church for only someone apropriately appointed may marry you or the marriage would not be legal and sure a pastor could counsel you and assist you with building a strong foundation on the word. But, it is your walk….so will you and your spouse walk in the fruit of the spirit or by a sinful nature.

I believe divorce is an easy way out to many people who are too cowardly to really deal with the issues. Long Suffering is what I was always told marriage required and unfortunately are society doesn’t create these type of individuals anymore.

By jkl

January 20, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

Bad idea..

By Alex Stamatovich

January 20, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

TO: Melissa Griffin I think the Taliban is looking for a new spokesman. Perhaps you should apply! Stay focused. The issue is SECULAR laws dealing with legal relationships. No one is talking about religion.

By Steve

January 20, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

No!!!! What has happened to the conservative ideology of less government intervention in our lives??????? I know how I am voting in Nov and it ain’t for any REPUBLICANS!!!!

By Karen Schwartz

January 20, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

No, I do not believe this bill will help couples work out their differences. I think it will just make the domestic abuse/homicide rates higher.

By B

January 20, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

I think extending the wait to four months is a great idea. Couples today look at divorce as an easy way out. They would rather get divorced than just try to compremise and work things out like adults! Marriage is not something that should by any means be entered into lightly, and neither is divorce. If you loved your spouse enough to marry them, then you owe it to them and yourseft to do the mature, grown-up thing and work things out. I think that a longer wait, gives you more time to get over being angry and attempt to work things out.

By Sarah

January 20, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

Melissa you know no more about God or what God intended that anyone else, so stop trying to pretend like you do. Shut up; God has never spoken, written, emailed or called you, you’re going on your beliefs and thats all they are, your personal beliefs. You know no more about marriage than anyone else so stop telling us what God intended when it comes to marriage. Climb down off the cross and stop acting as if you have a private line to heaven and your privy to conversations that God is conducting. If you want to stay in a miserable marriage, so be it, do so. Just don’t point your hypocritical finger my way and try to tell me that some politician who NEVER lives by the laws and rules they impose upon society, will ever tell me I can’t divorce when I choose to. I’ll just move to a state where there’s a more enlightened political machine running the state.

By Jeanine Merritts

January 20, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

I don’t think this is a good idea. Divorce is a personal choice. Next we will need approval for whom you want to marry.

By Carrie

January 20, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

Melissa - 1) Proofreading is a lost art 2) Separation of Church & State is the foundation that our country was built upon 3) God loves us and does not want us to suffer. Why can’t you love your neighbor without judging them or interfering in their lives. If God has a problem with it then HE will deal with it when the time comes. Trust me, He doesn’t need your help or interference. 4) I think you really must be someone who is just trying to get something started and can’t be serious. 5) Seriously, ask yourself sometimes “What would Jesus do?” before you just rant.

By Bonnie

January 20, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

To those saying Government should stay out of people’s lives, I write a heartfelt, get a Clue. The business of government is Business, and that includes Family Court. Judges act more like sales reps so divorce and custody issues serve to allow the judge to micro-management people’s lives for approximately eighteen years. For more information, see http://www.FamilyLawCourts.com

Government will never willingly exit an opportunity to foster business, usually to attorneys and therapists. The media, sadly, because they don’t staff family court, likewise helps the public remain unaware they’re just funding sources, with kids being the Primary golden marketing source. There’s a lot of money behind, “The best interests of the child” and it all goes to attorneys, visitation monitors, therapists, move-away ‘specialists’ and forensic accountants.

By Melissa

January 20, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this

Carrie,

Jesus has already done what he was appointed to do he gave us the authority.

Now, GOD on the other…

Read:

Godliness in the last days 2 Timothy 3

By Carrie

January 20, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

Jesus did not give YOU any authority. I’m not going to let you bastardize the Bible in order to prove that you are ‘holier than thou’ either. The Bible is a good thing, Christianity is a good thing and God is a great thing……until people like you ruin it for the rest of us!

By J.T.

January 20, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

I think this bill is a good idea.

I’d also like to see bills requiring married couples to eat more home cooked meals at the dinner table b/t 6:30 and 7:15 p.m.,nightly, wash their cars at least once a week, cut their grass twice a week, and keep up the maintenance of their home!

If these bills were passed married couples would help keep america beautiful!

By red

January 20, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

God gave us all the freedom to chose. Nothing is forced upon anyone, not even God’s laws. God said I place before you life and death, blessingings and curses… you chose. God respects the choice you make. You have the right to chose marriage, divorce, abortion. The same right to chose same-sex partners, drugs or anything else.

Writing of divorce is discussed in the bible. By Moses in Deuteronomy chapter 24 and in the New Testament by Jesus chapter 5 and 19. If God Himself does not take away our right to chose, be it right or wrong (depending on the individual)why should anyone else.

All I’m saying is that I must live with the choices that I make and you must live with yours. I reap the harvest of my choices not you.

By Jack

January 20, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

If there are children involved it would be in their best interests if their parents could try to work things out rather than get another set of parents/grandparents.

By buck

January 20, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

Does anyone else wonder whether the laws proposed by GA legislature can actually get any more intrusive and ridiculous? Where do these guys dream this crap up?

By Kendall

January 20, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

My life is the product of a great couple who didn’t divorce. They may have considered it many times, but they didn’t. If vows really are vows, then yes, we should think as long as possible about divorcing.

By Carrie

January 20, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

I think the majority of the people who get divorced think long and hard BEFORE they come to that decision. Once their minds are made up they don’t need anyone telling them that they need to stay together longer. Very rarely does anyone decide to divorce in a day.

By Been There

January 20, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

I imagine most people think really hard before deciding to end a marriage. I know I did. I stayed in mine for 20 years for the kids and because I believed in my vows. I didn’t choose to leave, he did. So for me 30 days or 180 days wouldn’t have changed anything. But a longer wait period is really a good idea and doesn’t really hurt anyone if it is instituted properly.

I was amazed at the short wait to finalize a divorce in Georgia . New York has a 1 year waiting period, Massachusetts has 6 months. (so this isn’t just a Georgian thing) BUT this wait is to finalize only. You can go ahead, file for separation right away. From the date of that filing, your assets are separated. Anything you do or acquire after this is considered yours, not joint property or liability. This way you can move on with your life or out, work on doing all the nasty stuff of prepping for finalizing, dividing of assets, visitation, etc. If you come to an amicable solution in 30 days, great. BUT, you cannot get the “official” divorce decree until the wait period is over. The wait period has nothing to do with separating. It is just the final stamp. A longer wait period (even after coming to agreements) gives a person time to see what it is like living on their own and deciding that yes, this is what is best.

By jennifer

January 20, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

I read Erica’s comment and looked up the gun laws in Georgia. It is easier to buy a gun in Ga. becuase their is not waiting period to buy a gun. Therefore it would be easier to shot the bastard than get a divorce in the state of Ga.

By red

January 20, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this

LOL! Jennifer. It’s easier but unfortunately you’ll end up in jail.

By Yevette

January 20, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this

NO!!! Why are our legislator trying to continually legislate morality? In issues where there is abuse, do you think that the person or person’s being abused would like to be in constant and continuous contact with their abuser? In 4 months that person could be dead or close to death. Who would win in this situation, other than the lawyers? If our legislators want to add morality to their list of accomplishments, why not work on outlawing homelessness or people not making enough money to support their families…oh yeah, I forget, those people have chosen their lots in life. Now that our legislator divorces are over and they are in perfect marriages and they have all the answers they want to tell other what to do. How about this, every legislator who is divorced should go back to their wife or husband and live together for 4 months and then decide if divorce was the right thing for them.

By Angela

January 20, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

No, waiting is NOT a good idea. The artical states that if there are signs of abuse then a hearing would take place to grant the divorce sooner…ha! My previous marriage was a nightmare for me and my children. My husband, at the time, was very controlling and verbally abusive (can’t prove verbal abuse) and towards the end it had started to get physically violent because I was finally learning to take a stand for my children and myself. Should the divorce have been delayed I would hate to think of how my children would have suffered more. People get divorced for many reasons, some of which are petty, but most are valid and should not be controlled by the government. Yes, it is sad the children suffer the most from a divorce but in many cases it is healthier for the children to be away from the yelling and degrading words. A good healthy marriage is what we all strive for but sometimes love is blind and we learn too late that it’s not love at all and a home without love is a sad thing for any man, woman or child to have to live in. Let the government take control of more pressing matters and leave peoples personal lives alone.

By red

January 20, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

I agree with you Angela.This law seems to be based on the serial brides and grooms with no consideration of abuse or infidelity. Not well thought out at all.

By Diane Tavegia

January 20, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

Yes. I think this is a great idea and could possibly help restore families.

I also support the ‘covenant marriage’ available in Georgia where a couple agrees prior to marriage that divorce is not an option except under the most extreme situations and then with counseling.

The Bible only gives ONE reason for divorce to be allowed, except in the case of a lifestyle of adultery (unrepentant) or an unbeliever desserting his or her family.

Malachi 2:13 You fill the place of worship with your whining and sniveling because you don’t get what you want from God. 14 Do you know why? Simple. Because God was there as a witness when you spoke your marriage vows to your young bride, and now you’ve broken those vows, broken the faith-bond with your vowed companion, your covenant wife. 15 God, not you, made marriage. His Spirit inhabits even the smallest details of marriage. And what does he want from marriage? Children of God, that’s what. So guard the spirit of marriage within you. Don’t cheat on your spouse. 16 “I hate divorce,” says the God of Israel. God-of-the-Angel-Armies says, “I hate the violent dismembering of the ‘one flesh’ of marriage.” So watch yourselves. Don’t let your guard down. Don’t cheat. 17 You make God tired with all your talk. “How do we tire him out?” you ask. By saying, “God loves sinners and sin alike. God loves all.” And also by saying, “Judgment? God’s too nice to judge.”

I support this measure fully and applaud the Georgia state lawmakers presenting this bill.

Diane Tavegia

By Andy

January 20, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this

Only four months? I wish my no-kids/few-assets divorce had only taken four months to complete!

I agree that counseling on how to raise the kids in two households without all the anger and frustration is a good thing that should be encouraged (but a law? Jeeeezz!). But how much of that is enough to counter all the bad feelings that come along with reaching that decision to divorce?

By red

January 20, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this

Deuteronomy 24 1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

Matthew 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement

Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

By Carrie

January 20, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

Diane Tevigia- The beauty of this country is that you can quote the Bible all day long and it doesn’t matter. What part of separation of church and state is so incredibly hard to understand?

By Heartbroken

January 20, 2006 05:20 PM | Link to this

My husband and I had been together for 11 years. We got pregnant in January of 2002 after 3 years of fertility treatments. Our families were overjoyed, but come to find out my husband was not and he began to drink very heavily. He was put in rehab twice and was told that if he didn’t stop drinking he would surely die. I stayed with him until he relapsed for the third time. Our divorce was finialized May of 2005 and my son and I moved from Georgia to Florida. My ex-husband had visitation and I would drive 6 hours up and drop off our son and drive 6 back to FL twice in the weekend span so he could see his daddy. My ex had another relaps in July, but I could not prove it. I was finally told by his family in October 2005 that he was drinking again and I stopped all visitation until he was clean for at least 5 months. December 1st, my ex-husband stood in his parents kitchen and shot himself in the head in front of his own mother. I can only wonder if our divorce would have been dragged out for months, would he have taken not only his life but also mine and his 3 year old son’s life too???

By shawn

January 23, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

I can truly understand the Government position on this matter. The government gives you the right to get married when you turn a turn a certain age without having consent. The government does not require a 3 month premarital trial before they grant you a license. But for them to say you need to go to counseling witha person you know do not want to be with anymore is crazy. It may cause more harm in the home than good. Some relationship are violent and have great potential to be violent. So why would the government make two adults stay with each other if they don’t want to be. Good example do you want to go to counseling with a person you don’t like. Maybe they should modify this. Counseling for the parents and children seprately after the divorce. To help them cope with the divorce and living separate lives. Stay out of adults business, thats why we are called adults.

By Lisa

January 23, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

Amen Melissa Griffin!! You said it. People don’t want to believe this anymore, but there is absolute truth and this is it. Marriage is entered into too lightly in our society and there is little thought given to exiting it. Love is a choice, not an emotion. Marriage is a covenant, not a ‘thing for the moment’. People are selfish. I don’t say, stay and get beat, but many times women know this before they get married. They go into it with blinders on. Get help through a church or good counseling. Separate and spend time getting help for yourself. Finally, THINK about the children. This whole thing about we can be friends and the children will be fine is bunk. Hello, kids want and need both parents. That is the way the family is designed. It is meant to function in a particular way, and we have messed with the design.

By Pete

January 23, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

They need to do away with the No Fault divorce. The way it is now you can just walk no questions asked. Do away with no fault and you have to have a legit reason for divorce. Then you would not need divorce classes. You need to take the incentive out of divorces. The bills created by both parties WILL be devided equally between both parties. Not one party walks away dedt free and the other party has to pay them all. You want a divorce, fine, you get half the bills created during the marriage.

By erica

January 25, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

Pete, Maybe No Fault divorce should be done away with in Ga., but if you look at the laws that have already been passed without notice regarding divorce in Ga now, you will see that you have to divide all the assests, even the ones prior to marriage with your spouse. I believe this is worse than waiting 4 months for a divorce. I worked hard to become a professional. I gave up partying, etc. to get my education and sacrifised my youth for my child. Because of the laws regarding marriage now, I am not sure I would ever marry in this state because I cannot see having to sell my house, etc. to give a person half of what I have worked so hard for becuase of one bad decision. The bottom line is that the government needs to stay out of adult’s personal lives. There are other pressing matters the government should be making a priority.

By JohnS

January 25, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

Post by JT: “January 20, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

I think this bill is a good idea.

I’d also like to see bills requiring married couples to eat more home cooked meals at the dinner table b/t 6:30 and 7:15 p.m.,nightly, wash their cars at least once a week, cut their grass twice a week, and keep up the maintenance of their home!

If these bills were passed married couples would help keep america beautiful!”

Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And another thing …

I could add a few things but your listing is right on. Thanks for posting.

By Gina

January 25, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

With the divorce rate so high, they need to concentrate on laws that will make divorce truly equitable with joint legal and joint physical custody of the children if there isn’t a history of violence. The legislators need to concentrate on ensuring the child support guidelines are fair. Take care of those laws and we will see a decrease in the women divorcing for financial gain.

By Judy

January 26, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

Two quick thoughts - first a longer waiting period is not necessary. If lawyers are involved, it will take more than four months anyway. Second, lets define a marriage as that between a man and a woman. Lets legalize a union between a man and man or woman and woman and call that a legal union - keeping the decidedly different aspects of each separate. One additional thought - divorce is never equal and no amount of laws are going to make it so.

By DaiSha

January 26, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

I think divorces are far too easily filed and granted. Couples too often have not exhausted all measures of repairing and saving a marriage that has little eyes watching, studying, and learning the dynamics that are involved in joining a man and a woman as a family unit. I am a teacher, and I sit in classrooms, grocery stores, and in front of the news on TV and see the effects of marriages and families breaking down too quickly and with little regard for the subsequent effects on the offspring. Take time to get it right not to get it over. Please, our future depends on it!

By LadyEngineer

February 1, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

Marriage in the Church is a Covenant. The marriage license the state gives you is nothing more than a contract. There is a difference. Carrie, I agree with your post! Separation of Church and state.

By Been there

February 2, 2006 08:13 AM | Link to this

I feel that fidelity is fading fast in todays society. No one wants to work things out anymore kids or no kids. It’s more about the two adults, when one isn’t happy in a marriage seems like the only thing they want is to just feel good again and you can bet that there are plenty of others out there willing to be just that “the other”. I think if thats the case then why not let “the other” hold some of that responsibility. They should be sued for interferring in and causing emotional stress in a “certified marriage”. These “others” to me are desperate individuals who let theirselves be fooled into thinking that a divorce will come and they can live happily ever after with this individual, but think about it if they do it once why not do it again. What happen to self respect? I myself didn’t like the feeling of causing that kind of grief for anybody (especially with kids involved. What comes around goes around.