Some Okla. Conservatives Aren't That Conservative

High divorce rates may represent a significant problem for a society and bringing them down is probably a worthwhile goal. But it is not the business of government, most especially an allegedly conservative one. Laws that mandate counseling coming and going are products of the nanny state, not a state that advocates small government and individual liberties.

I'd really like to see the GOP get back to a more traditional concept of conservatism, than the socially activist one that has dominated in recent decades. Besides the principle of the thing, it's a loser at the polls.

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- Touching on a sensitive issue among conservatives nationwide, the Republican-controlled Oklahoma Legislature is embroiled in a dispute over whether lawmakers should remain focused on the state's budget problems and other fiscal priorities or delve into family issues, especially the state's chronically high divorce rate.

Republican members proposed three pieces of legislation imposing new regulations on marriage and divorce in Oklahoma. Two of the measures were defeated, but another - requiring counseling for those planning to wed, and therapy sessions for couples considering divorce - is awaiting action.

The issue has produced sharp clashes among conservative colleagues who normally find themselves in agreement. The debates have featured charges of hypocrisy and of betraying Republican principles against government intrusion into private lives.

"How far do I want government to come into my home and your home about private personal matters?" asked Rep. Leslie Osborn, a Republican from Tuttle, in a debate. She referred to state government as a "huge monster."

Comments

[Live Free Or Die]

Perhaps they learned Civics/Social Studies in thuh Librul Publick Skool Sistum.

[Roger Knight]

Actually the easiest way to bring down divorce rates is to do these things:

1) Require proof of wrongdoing (such as the traditional grounds for divorce, i.e. adultery, neglect, abandonment, and abuse), in every divorce where the respondent contests it and place the burden of proof upon the petitioner. We can allow for counterclaims by the respondent. The risk of counterclaim has a way of reducing the workload of the courts.

2) Rebuttable presumption that the petitioner, regardless of gender, is volunteering to give up custody of the children, to pay child support, and to give up the house, unless she can PROVE one of the traditional grounds for divorce.

3) The original argument, and it was as phony as a 3 dollar bill with Clinton's picture on it, for "no-fault" divorce is to allow divorce by mutually agreed contract. Well shucks! We can allow that WITHOUT stripping respondents in contested divorces of their right to DUE PROCESS OF LAW as we do in our no-fault, unilateral divorce regime.

AND

4) Restore ALL provisions of the state and United States Constitutions to the practice of family law. As there is no excuse for domestic violence, neither is there any excuse for violating the Constituion! If a state constitution prohibits imprisonment for debt, that is sufficient reason to not do it! If peonage is a crime, 18 U.S.C. 1581, that is sufficient reason to indict family court judges for doing it.

But then again, these measures would not increase government the way "counseling" does. Counseling is a placebo.

[OCBill]

As a former Oklahoman, two things strike me about this. First, the term "Republican-controlled legislature". When I lived there, Oklahoma was essentially a one party, Democratic state. Fortunately, Jimmy Carter fixed that. Second, this illustrates the dangers of "compassionate conservatism" in which progressive statism is re-labeled as "conservative". Using state-sponsored coercion to (hopefully) promote a civic good, is not conservative.

[mariner]

When laws were changed to make divorce easier and to blatantly favor women over men, it was not a case of government meddling in private affairs.

But now there's talk of undoing some of that, and suddenly it's not a proper topic for elected representatives.

Funny how that works, isn't it?