Divorce exacts public toll

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • FightingBack
    May 12, 2008 1:16 p.m.

    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"

  • Paul Mero
    April 19, 2008 12:22 p.m.

    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 respect.

  • Paul Mero
    April 19, 2008 12:19 p.m.

    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.

  • Thomas
    April 18, 2008 9:31 p.m.

    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.

  • LOL
    April 18, 2008 4:52 p.m.

    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 :-)

  • two-faces have conservatives
    April 18, 2008 4:41 p.m.

    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.

  • main reason
    April 18, 2008 3:31 p.m.

    The main reason for divorce (LDS and non-LDS included) is that people no longer like each other.

  • Abominous
    April 18, 2008 3:17 p.m.

    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.

  • Hatuletoh
    April 18, 2008 2:20 p.m.

    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.

  • I suspect that many of those
    April 18, 2008 1:15 p.m.

    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)

  • anon
    April 18, 2008 11:53 a.m.

    Socialistic government exacts the toll(s).

  • Bob
    April 18, 2008 11:34 a.m.

    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

  • Derek Monson
    April 18, 2008 11:25 a.m.

    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.

  • Thomas
    April 18, 2008 10:52 a.m.

    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.

  • YouGoFirst
    April 18, 2008 9:55 a.m.

    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?

  • Makes me livid!
    April 18, 2008 9:41 a.m.

    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.

  • Hatuletoh
    April 18, 2008 9:14 a.m.

    Thanks "anon @ 8:39". Exactly what I was wondering. And all I need to know about this little bit of propaganda.

  • Hatuletoh
    April 18, 2008 8:55 a.m.

    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 with pseudo-science?

  • anon
    April 18, 2008 8:39 a.m.

    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 Values
    Georgia Family Council
    Institute for Marriage and Public Policy
    Families Northwest

    Do you think they just might be a little biased?

  • Nate
    April 18, 2008 8:07 a.m.

    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.

  • Dave
    April 18, 2008 7:48 a.m.

    Sounds like we need mandatory divorce insurance.

  • Except for FLDS
    April 18, 2008 7:16 a.m.

    But if they are members of the FLDS we should rip the family apart because that is the best thing.

  • Anonymous
    April 18, 2008 4:22 a.m.

    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 must participate,