Shit that Pissed me off This Week – 4/12
North Carolina Republicans are Pushing a Bill for a Two Year waiting Period on Divorce
Explain to me how this is less government again?
Now I have to be honest. I think couples who are considering divorce should have a cooling off period. They probably should get couples therapy to see if they can work out whatever differences they have. Unless there is abuse, of course, then I think that the marriage needs to be ended as quickly as possible.
That opinion, by the way, is not shared by the authors of this bill. There is no exception for spouses trying to escape abuse.
No matter what my personal opinions may be, however, I don’t think that the state should be the one that gets to decide when a couple has tried hard enough to keep their marriage together. To be blunt, how the fuck would the state know?
The law in question may even start the clock over if it can be proven the couple has had sex after filing for divorce. So let me get this straight – you want them to make sure they work on their marriage before they call it quits but if, in the natural course of working on their marriage, they have sex, they will get punished by having to remain married longer. The logic is completely idiotic.
Work on your marriage.
NOT THAT WAY!!!!
I’m sorry – now you are going to have to work on the marriage more.
Westboro Baptist Church Picketed Roger Ebert’s Funeral
I try to avoid writing about the WBC because they want attention more than anything so fuck them.
But look, why get up in arms about this one? I didn’t know Roger Ebert personally but something tells me he would be greatly amused that they decided to picket his funeral. He thought they were a waste of time and space.
What the WBC does is horrible. What is more horrible is the way we continue to report it. Every time they send out a press release saying they are going to picket a funeral, we freak the fuck out. And we fail to recognize that we are doing exactly what they want us to do.
I will continue to say that the best way to deal with these horrible people is to ignore them.
Kentucky Lawmaker Tries to Explain why Their Pro-Discrimination Bill is Anti-Discrimination
The governor of Kentucky wisely vetoed a bill that made it legal for people to refuse service based on “deeply held religious beliefs” but the legislature was able to override it no problem. The law is (I hope) going to be found unconstitutional but you need to read the justification provided by one of the supporters of the bill.
It is filled with lies, half-truths and paranoid delusions about the kind of “persecution” Christians are facing in America.
There seems to be this failure to understand that the non-religious don’t care if Christians want to be Christians. We care when they want the rest of us to be Christians. We have as much of a right to be free from religion as they have a right to celebrate it.
In their own way.
On their own time.
You don’t get to refuse me service just because I’m an atheist any more than I can refuse service to you because you are a Christian.
And the nefarious thing about this law is that an atheist can’t refuse service to because we don’t have deeply held religious beliefs. Nor can a homosexual business owner refuse service to a Christian with a hateful bumper sticker because being gay isn’t a religious belief.
So tell again how this is an anti-discrimination bill?
Tacoma Coffee Shop Kicks out Atheist Talk Show at the Last Minute Because God
To be fair, the proprietors didn’t actually say why they cancelled the engagement six days before the event. They just said it didn’t align with what they “believe and stand for.”
Apparently one of the things they don’t believe in is turning the other cheek.
I’m sure even as atheists in the Tacoma area decide to take their business elsewhere, Christians will flock there and the owners will end up with the mistaken idea that they did a good thing.
If I opened up a coffee shop and some Christians wanted to hold an event there, I wouldn’t kick them out. You know why?
I’m not a dick.
Kindergartener Suspended for a “distracting” Haircut
The kid wanted a mohawk so his mom gave him one. The other kids in class thought it was cool so they wanted to look at it and touch it. So he got suspended until he cut it off.
Seems like a perfectly reasonable response to the situation, right? I mean, he was being a “disruption to the learning environment,” right?
Have you ever been around kindergarteners? The biggest disruption to the learning environment in a kindergarten classroom is the fact there are a bunch of kindergarteners there.
Kids that age are easily distracted. For a little while. One day they were distracted by a kid’s hair. The next day they would be distracted by a new stain on the carpet.
But hey, at least the kid wasn’t suspended for growing his hair long to donate to Locks of Love.
I’m not a teacher so I don’t honestly know what constitutes a distraction in the classroom but being a parent I would say that children, at the best of times, are distractions. Certainly there is some outrageous dress that shouldn’t be tolerated but honestly, I’m pretty sure there is far worse behavior to be dealt with than a mildly distracting haircut.
Teenager Kills Herself After Gang Rape and Bullying
As if it wasn’t bad enough that she was gang raped and the authorities decided there wasn’t enough evidence to charge her “alleged” attackers, her classmates proceeded to circulate pictures of her having sex and bullied her to the point she felt she had no other options but to end her life.
Today, the perpetrator’s families probably still think that their kids are victims of character assassination even though it is someone else’s child who is dead.
Would I act any differently if one of my boys did something that horrible? Man, I hope so. I hope I would still love them but tell them that they needed to face the music for their horrible act.
Five years from now, those boys won’t even remember her name. How’s that for justice?
Orthodox Patriarch says Feminism could Destroy Russia
His reasoning involves some bizarre babble about how men must turn their gaze “outward” to make money and women must turn their gaze “inward” to raise lots of babies and cook. Or something. I started being overtaken with an insatiable desire to spit at my computer screen so I looked at cat videos for a little while.
Even in his own very tolerant religious leader kind of way, he sounds just like the guys who come up with juvenile insults about feminists that have absolutely nothing to do with feminism.
I mean, he’s the head of the Russian Orthodox church so it seems unlikely he’d call them “frigid cunts.” At least not in public.
So instead he points out that most feminists aren’t married anyway. He doesn’t offer statistics. He just says he “noticed” it.
Huh. I know a lot of feminists. And most of them are married. That doesn’t mean anything, by the way, because I’m just making assumptions based on a small data set. Just like this dude.
And hell, what if they aren’t married? Is it because no guy will date them or is it because they just don’t want to get married? He probably thinks it’s because they are frigid cunts. But he can’t say that (at least not out loud) because he’s the head of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Getting angry again. I have to go look at some bacon.
OK. I’m feeling better. So…just…grrrrrr…FUCK THIS GUY!
I was with you until the skater video. I’m not sure what your beef is with the Surface or skating. Its just a touch screen that runs software and I don’t even think anyone is buying them. But I agree with the rest.
Uh…what skater video???
Ha, turns out that was just an ad injected in your page at a place that confused me. No never mind, and please pass the bacon.
On the NC bill. Marriage is failing. It’s not just there are more failed marriages, but the entire institution of marriage is coming apart. This has nothing to do with gay marriage, but divorce. Something needs to be done, and something drastic. The bill is something very drastic, and I think it will work. It does need some refinement and debate. I agree that having sex shouldn’t reset the clock. That’s just stupid. I don’t agree that abuse should be a consideration. Making it a consideration will create incentives for women to lie about abuse and fabricate criminal charges to end the marriage faster. Protection orders will still be avalibe and given out like candy to protect the victims. Are there better solutions Probably. No marriage for anyone is another solution. Just kill the institution of marriage alltogether. Do you like that solution better?
I’m very interested to see a citation as to why you believe marriage is “failing.” Please don’t quote me the 50% of marriages end in divorce statistic because that statistic is false:
If marriage is genuinely “failing” (and I don’t think that it is), state sanctioned marriage counselling is not going to fix it.
Protection orders given out “like candy?” That would imply you have a pretty low opinion of protection orders. And that still doesn’t solve the problem of someone stuck in an abusive relationship who is forced to endure two years of counselling before they can fully escape.
Look at it from the other direction. The marriage rate has fallen dramatically. In the 40’s almost 80% of households where married couples. By 2010 it has dropped to less than 50% of households are married couples. With the growth and easing of divorce, marriage isn’t “Till death do us part” but “Till she’s not feeling it any more” It’s not JUST the divorce rate, but the affect that has on people’s willingness to get married in the first place.
And….Do a better job vetting your sources. Your right It’s not a 50% divorce rate, according to your source it’s 43%. That is still high enough to make my case on that alone.
Oh come on. My source says that one model shows a divorce rate of 43% is possible. That is not the same thing as an established fact. It is a model. The same page shows another model that predicted 50% and was wrong. There were dozens of pages refuting that statistic. I picked one because I didn’t think I needed to link to multiple articles saying the same thing.
Your statistics, by the way, don’t point to divorce as an issue but rather people choosing not to get married in the first place. That is an entirely different issue that does not get resolved by state sanctioned marriage counselling.
You haven’t proven to me that marriage needs to be rescued or that legally requiring people who don’t love each other to wait two years before they can move on will rescue it.
The institution of marriage is failing. This failure isn’t just seen in divorce rates, but also in single and never married. The institution is failing.
What changed, divorce. Divorce is what changed.
Is Changing divorce law the only option….no….but it shouldn’t be discounted as an option. Changing divorce law to make it harder is a much better option than just killing the institution of marriage.
I think you also have a base misunderstanding of what marriage is.
Marriage is the state sanctioned legal contract for a domestic partnership sutible for raising children and limiting costs. Any and all changes to marriage are withing the realm of government because marriage is it’s self a government function.
Weddings are the ceremonies preformed by religions and churches. Weddings, not marriage, has religious connotations.
Love is the feeling that people have for each other. This has nothing to do with entering into a legal contract called marriage to divide costs and obligations.
Marriage, the state sanctioned legal contract for domestic partnerships, has seen a decline of nearly 50%. Divorce rates are at least 1 in 3 (that’s 33% vs the 50% you object to). Do something or the institution of marriage will fail completely. Changing divorce law is not the only option, but it is a real option.
How about this. Take the same standards, the same limitations, the same time line, the same requirements…..and make them requirements for marriage, not divorce. If you want to get married, there is a two year waiting period. There is mandatory marriage counseling. There is mandatory child care and information on the affects of divorce on children. All of these requirements are BEFORE marriage. That would probably work better than requirements for divorce.
Marriage is an interesting construct. It provides certain legal benefits from the state to recognized unions. Legal benefits than can be beneficial to the partners and offspring. But marriage and those benefits are not the relationship. They are merely legal benefits. A couple can certainly determine for themselves whether those benefits are important TO THEM. And those same people can make the decision ON THEIR OWN whether to try to preserve their relationship. Marriage has nothing to do with that.
By the way, quite the prophet you are. Members of the community have posted “Support the boys” flyers RIGHT OUTSIDE the Parsons home.
Fuck I hate the world sometimes. I’m gonna go and look at pictures of puppies and kittens cuddling together or something.