Skip to main content

"Making most divorces illegal" brought to you by Iowa State Representative Ted Grassman

Have you ever known of a husband and a wife whom never cheated on one another, never abused one another, yet after a while, couldn't stand each other, to the point of divorcing? Republican Iowa State Representative Ted Grassman wants to make that illegal. Unless a person could prove his or her spouse had committed some kind of a crime, had committed adultery, or had abandoned the family, it'd be illegal for that person to successfully file for divorce.

With regard to wanting to make "no-fault divorce" illegal, Grassman said the following:

"This basically is an attempt on my part to keep fathers in the home. I sincerely believe that the family is the foundation of this nation and this nation will go the direction of our families. If our families break up, so will this nation."

He then got personal when he talked about his daughter and son-in-law recently divorcing and the effect it will have on his granddaughter, saying:

"There's a 16-year old girl in this whole mix now. Guess what? What are the possibilities of her being more promiscuous? What are the possibilities of all these other things surrounding her life that a 16-year old girl, with hormones raging, can get herself into?"

No, divorce isn't the ideal situation in which to place a child. However, neither is an unhappy marriage. Whether the husband or wife is or isn't being faithful is really of no relevance if the couple is miserable being together. This misery can have serious impacts on a child's overall mental and emotional health. The optimal situation for a child would be to be raised by two parents whom are relatively happy and love one another. However, if that is no longer feasible for a couple, wouldn't it be a better situation for a child to be raised by two happy separated parents than by miserable parents whom remained with one another because they felt it was best for their child?

As far as the insinuation that divorce leads to promiscuity among the parents' children, I don't believe the link is strong enough to be of significance. Young women resort to promiscuous lifestyles often times because they long for love, attention, affection, and acceptance which they don't receive by one or both parents at home. Once again, would a young woman be more prone to promiscuity if her parents divorced, but were happy, as well as loving and supportive of her or if they remained with one another, miserable, arguing too frequently to really show her the love and support she needed? Again, while the ideal situation for her would be if the parents stayed together and were happy, loving, and supportive, I think it's quite naive to suggest she'd be better off constantly being around parents whom hated one another more with every passing day than if they divorced and were much more content, loving, and supportive as a result.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/05/1670841/no-fault-divorce-promiscuity/

Comments

  1. I live in Iowa, and I'm ashamed when I hear about people in my state trying to pull things like this.

    First of all, it's ridiculous he thought it was okay to speculate about his own granddaughter's possible promiscuity in the future. Seriously, did this clown have to drag her into this? Not only does she have to deal with the divorce, now she's been dragged through the mud by her own grandfather who's concerned about scoring political points.

    Second of all, he clearly doesn't understand why some marriages fall apart. I agree that it's worse for a child to grow up in a miserable home with parents that can't stand each other.

    If he had his way, we'd be America, the land where you're free to live miserably because our idea of morality and what's best for everyone will be imposed on you regardless of how you feel about it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent point about the granddaughter. It really is despicable when a politician drags a family member into a debate in an attempt to score political points, especially a child or grandchild.

    I can just imagine the granddaughter's thoughts when she heard/hears about this:

    "Wait...does this mean since mommy and daddy broke up, I'm going to be... What's promiscuous mean anyway? ::looks it up:: I'm going to be easy now? Just like Dirty Mary? ::cries and calls grandpa::"

    Yeah, stay classy, Ted Grassman...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...