Foundation Wants Stricter Rules for Splits
By Tim Craig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 5, 2007; B03


RICHMOND, Jan. 4 -- After its victory in last year's fight over a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Virginia, the Family Foundation of Virginia announced Thursday that it will push to change the state's divorce laws to make it more difficult for parents to end their marriage.

The Family Foundation, which opposes abortion and promotes socially conservative values, said it will lobby the General Assembly this year to amend the state's long-standing no-fault divorce law, which essentially allows a husband or wife to terminate a marriage without cause.

The foundation is advocating "mutual consent divorce" for couples with children, which would require a husband and wife to agree to divorce before a marriage can be legally terminated, except in certain instances, such as abuse or cruelty. The proposed legislation would not affect childless couples.

"Right now, one spouse can unilaterally end [the marriage], and not only is their spouse unable to stop the divorce, their abandonment does not preclude them from having custody of their child," said Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation. "When we send a message that one can up and leave their family and have no consequence, the Old Dominion is encouraging divorce."

Similar legislation has failed in the past. Cobb said the push for tougher standards is one of several initiatives her organization will advocate when the General Assembly convenes next week.

The foundation also wants libraries to be required to install Internet filters to block pornography and obscene material from children's view.

And, in what has become a yearly battle in Richmond, the group plans to push for laws to reduce the number of abortions in the state.

Specifically, Cobb said the group will advocate changes to the informed consent law so that abortion clinics would be required to perform an ultrasound before administering an abortion. Another proposal would require clinics to give women information about how anesthesia could be used on fetuses during late-term abortions.

Cobb said the proposals are designed to give women "the most advanced health-care information available."

But Ann O'Hanlon, executive director of Virginia's chapter of the National Abortion Rights Action League, said her group would oppose the foundation's efforts.

"Getting a woman unbiased information is what we like to see, but when it is coming from people who oppose the legal option of abortion, it is not going to be unbiased information," O'Hanlon said.

Last year, the Family Foundation was the chief proponent of a Virginia constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions.

Despite opposition from Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D), who argued that the amendment also threatened the rights of unmarried heterosexual couples, the Republican-controlled General Assembly put the amendment on last year's ballot. Voters approved it with 57 percent of the vote.

Cobb and her allies in the General Assembly said Thursday that the debate over the amendment banning same-sex marriage spurred this year's push for changes to the state's divorce laws.

"People were saying, 'It is not the homosexuals wrecking marriage, it's the heterosexuals,' so we are saying, 'Is there any truth to that?' " said Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), who has filed legislation to study the effects of no-consent divorce on state marriage rates.

"You can just walk away from someone right now. There is less security in the covenant of marriage than if you and I agree to open up a hamburger joint," Marshall said.

Cobb said she will work with Marshall and other legislators to explore more comprehensive legislation for requiring "mutual consent."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 10_pf.html

Maybe this will put the homosexuals who can't get married at an advantage in the breaking-it-off arena.

I don't find this nutty at all.

Shouldn't America strive towards making marraige stronger? Those loop holes really leave people open to exploitation.

Making marriage harder to legally end, doesnt make marriage "stronger".


I also like how adultry isnt on the list with abuse and cruelty... Im moving to Virginia.

Exactly. Not allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't make marriage any "stronger" either.

I don't understand how people seriously believe that factors external to the parties involved in the marriage can influence its strength or weakness.

Yup. Having marraige laws written so that a woman can cozy up to a guy with some money, divorce him the next week, and take half of his posessions...that's great for society.

Or Vice-versa. What if the guy's a gold-digger? There are plenty of them out there.

Absolutely. Fuck those guys.

Thats the worst bullshit i've seen today. People wont get divorced just because there is more bureaucracy? Gimme a brake.

I don't agree with the law being changed, I was just pointing out the sexist sound of the post. I'd reather see the law protect someone stuck in an abusive marriage than someone who may be fleeced. When you see someone marry someone else for money, usually the person with the money isn't exactly marrying for the right reasons either.

I wonder how this will effect Virginia's domestic abuse statistics.

Well, a prenuptial agreement solves this problem.

What I take issue with is the idea that making divorce harder is better for any children involved. You don't need physical abuse or cruelty present for a marriage to be dysfunctional...and a dysfunctional marriage can be just as bad for a child. For example - a couple can live up to their vows of monogamy and not ever hit one another, but due to new laws not be able to get divorced despite the fact that they've grown to hate each other and curse each other out. So what happens if these Family Value Loons get their way....a judge will order them to go home and work it out?

I'm still bothered by the idea of marriage as something regulated by the government in any way.

Agrred. Gov't should stay out of the marriage business

I'm fairly certain that divorce judgements tend to favor women - both for custody and monetary awards. This is likely an issue of both sexism - in the favor of women in this case, and because women are more likely to be dependent on their spouse financially.

The fact is that marriage is a legal contract, not a declaration of love.

Which is what I have a problem with to begin wtih.

Any time someone talks about the "strength" or "sanctity" of marriage, I can't help but

omg, these people should explode

what the fuck, disturbing...very