Unfortunately tearing up families makes money; lots of it. Blood money for sure
but it's money that certain people make at the expense of all of the rest of us.
Divorce attorneys, mediators, "parent-coordinators", custody evaluators,
commissioners, judges, DHS, and DCFS all make money and gain job security from
divorce. For instance DHS got $26 million in 2006 from federal incentives for
"child support" collection and the state's general fund profiteered to the tune
of over $5 million from this too. That's money that requires a parent to get
chopped out of the kids lives for the state to collect. Commonly ex-wives get
your house, alimony, "child-support", and your kids and have the feminist led
revengeful satisfaction of rubbing your nose in it too. How any marriage stays
together in the face of the money-hungry self-deluded divorce industry is a
miracle by itself. For more info about how truly diabolical the divorce industry
is, lookup Professor Stephen Baskerville on the Internet and read his book
"Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family"
Furthermore, what is obviously going on here are a few people who do not know
how to separate public policy from personal problems. Im sorry you all went
through a bad divorce, or know someone who did. But sound public policy cannot
be made on the back of your personal problems. It needs to be made in the clear
air of the common good.And one last thought for the sponsors of this
comment board: why not only allow real names and not allow people to hide behind
anonymity? I know that the Des News isnt the only situation that suffers from
this modern anti-free speech phenomenon (free speech requires accountability and
responsibility for our words). But the D-News could be a trend-setter in this
What I think is ridiculous are the comments about the validity of the study. It
is on the Sutherland web site (meaning the Internet for anyone to read)so go
read it. The methodology is impeccable and very conservative (in that cautious,
not political, way). Hatuletoh, the self-righteous skeptic, does not seem to
understand that while university studies are peer-reviewed, the studies are
worthless if the peers are worthless (think global warming science). The fact
that Sutherland brought it to the attention of Utahns should be considered a
plusespecially for skeptics, because they can now go read the study and examine
the methodology.This study focuses on one factor only: female-headed
households in poverty. And it says only this: if every one of those female got
married today, 60% of them and their children would be lifted out of povertyand
that Utah taxpayers would save 34% in taxes they pay to support them right now.
The authors of the study purposefully considered and then set aside all of the
other variables (like marriages affect on male-headed single family households)
that you folks have been saying arent in the study to its detriment.
LOL, the problem isn't stagnant wages, so much as it is an economic system that
depends too much on debt -- which causes prices to be set by the guy who's the
most reckless in borrowing.
There were 12 on my mother's side. No one divorced. There was seven on my
father's side. They all remained married.This was before two worked.
One salary in Utah could raise a family. Today, it takes two jobs to make it.
Today, families spent more time outside the home than in it. We have
a term: "growing apart." Add up another success for economic trickle down. Even
the job of parenting is outsourced. Now, is big conservative government going to
solve a problem created by static wages? You might rise the minimum wage :-)
I'll bet you the editor that suggests that government should take a more active
role in marriage is the same kind of conservative that whines about Democrats
wanting bigger government.:>
The main reason for divorce (LDS and non-LDS included) is that people no longer
like each other.
From the editorial:"This new research suggests that government
should take a more active role in promoting and strengthening marriages."A more logical conclusion would be for the government to take an active
role in discouraging marriage and childbearing.
Mr. Monson: to answer your question, it is the process of peer challenge and
review that makes research conducted by academic institutions more reliable than
those conducted by private parties with no accountability. When a
scientist at the University of Utah proposes a conclusion/theory/etc based upon
gathered data, his or her peers first take the data and the scientist's
conclusion and try to tear them apart. If the system is working properly (and
believe me, it doesn't always), the process is rough on the original scientist.
But the idea is that this scrutiny helps to expose the human bias in the data
and/or the conclusions drawn from it.Moreover, the university that
employs the scientist has a vested interest in ensuring that the scientist only
publishes top-quality material because it's the university's credibility on the
line. It's not a perfect system, but I'd trust a study from a reputable
academic institution over a relgious group any day.I'm not
disparging this divorce study, nor am I saying one shouldn't trust its
conclusions. All I'm saying is that the Deseret News needs to provide more than
the title of a "study" so that readers can know the biases of the researchers.
questioning this study accept without question studies blaming global climate
change on man. I guess it all depends upon where you stand morally (marriage is
good or bad) and politically (man should take care of the planet but man is not
powerful enough to change climate or man is evil trasher of the planet and
should be chained)
Socialistic government exacts the toll(s).
It is easy to blame social ills on easy targets, such as divorce. It is a far
more difficult and painful process to uncover the reasons for social ills. As
with most problems in America, we attempt to cover our wounds with inadequate
bandages rather than looking for the source(s) of the problem
Hatuletoh--setting aside your judgmental comments about southerners, what
monopoly does the academic community have on good information? I doubt any
institution, academic or otherwise, is impartial when it comes to the issue of
marriage. We all have values and beliefs, and to suggest that we need to
renounce them to be able to speak credibly about marriage issues is a bit
ridiculous.Makes me livid!--you make half of a good point.
Marriages that are abusive, or unfaithful marriage partners can create
intolerable marriages. We shouldn't punish people in these situations for
getting a divorce. However, your suggestion that "normal personality change
over time" can be equated to unfaithfulness or abuse strains reason.Do people's personality's change? Of course. However, personality
differences are not sufficient justification for asking society to bear the
significant costs of breaking a marriage commitment. Further, the argument that
personality differences can create an intolerable marriage in the same fashion
that abuse or unfaithfulness can is ludicrous, and even offensive to those who
have been abused or had an unfaithful partner. Marriage is a public commitment
that, barring things such as abuse or unfaithfullness, we as a society should
expect people to keep.
The vast majority of divorces aren't due to abuse, infidelity, or mental
illness. Like it or not, divorce does impose externalities on society -- costs
that aren't borne by the divorcing parties. It does do harm to children
(although, in those relatively rare cases where the divorce is precipitated by
real abuse, etc., the harm of divorce is probably a lesser harm than would be
involved in the marriage continuing).I don't think it's unreasonable
to require that divorcing couples bear some of these externalities, just as we
try to eliminate externalities in other sectors of the economy.
Too bad they didn't include the environmental impact of divorce. Just think
about it, 2 homes use more energy than one. Extra car trips between houses, 2
adults taking 2 cars to see their child's school play.To the whiners
about this opinion piece. Since when is marriage between 2 good people bad?
The sanctimonious claptrap coming from the Sutherland Institute is bad enough.
For the DesNews to parrot that same garbage is maddening in the extreme.OF COURSE, we all want our marriages to be satisfying and last forever
and for our children to grow into their own perfect and eternal marriages. Reality says otherwise. Sometimes spouses become abusive, or unfaithful,
or mentally ill. Sometimes its as simple as normal personality change over time
straining a relationship that was already strained when the couple first
married.Rather than finding ways to bribe or threaten couples into
staying together, we might want to examine the forces that strain marriages and
offer greater understanding and non-judgmental support to people who
legitimately need to end an intolerable marriage.
Thanks "anon @ 8:39". Exactly what I was wondering. And all I need to know
about this little bit of propaganda.
Thanks Nate @ 8:07. I'm glad someone said the obvious. There probably is a
tangible dollar cost for dissolution of marriages, but the figures from this
"study" are more like the gross rather than net cost.Which prompts
me to add: who conducted this "study"? Some impartial academic group, or some
nebulous organization with a catch-phrase for a name and a lot of money from
bible-thumping organizations south of the Mason-Dixon. Remember those folks:
the people who are very, very uncomfortable voting for an LDS presidential
candidate? Why doesn't this opinion piece reveal the source of
this "study"? I can slap figures together and call it a study anytime I like
but that doesn't make it something on which we should base public policy--let
alone personal opinions.Or does this newspaper just jump on every
piece of questionably credible data that said "families are good"? Isn't this
message important and self-evident enough that there is no need to co-mingle it
Come on people. I wonder why this article didn't mention the authors of this
"national report". This research was done by the following groups:Institute for American ValuesGeorgia Family CouncilInstitute for
Marriage and Public PolicyFamilies NorthwestDo you think they
just might be a little biased?
The report did not factor in the money currently spent on response to domestic
disturbances. It didn't factor in rates of people entering into second
marriages. It also assumed that the majority of divorced people were at the
poverty level individually, but OK with both parents working. This is not in
any way accurate. Considering this report was commissioned by marriage advocacy
groups, I wouldn't take it any more seriously than a report commissioned by
Israelis saying that Palestinians are all terrorists.
Sounds like we need mandatory divorce insurance.
But if they are members of the FLDS we should rip the family apart because that
is the best thing.(sarcasm)
There should be a special tax charfed against both sides that does not expire
untill all children reach 18. There would be no options to back out. Also on
state leval for state tax exemptions reduce there value by 50%. People are
costing society and need to kbow there decisions are costing society and they