Abbott wants to bring back fault-based divorce…
…for couples who make a free choice for their marriage to be governed by a set of laws reminiscent of the old fault-based laws.
Those couples who would like their marriage to be governed by the no-fault system would be just as free to choose that.
This seems unproblematic to me. As long as adult couples make a genuine free choice in how they wish to manage their personal affairs, on what grounds can the state deny them its sanction?
Which reminds me…aren’t there some other folks who aren’t presently able to make that kind of choice for themselves?
So I eagerly await Abbott’s announcements that he will also tirelessly fight for a free choice for people who would like full legal recognition for their unions. I expect any day now that Tony will take a courageous stand for same-sex, poly- and Sharia-based unions.
It’s all about an individual’s right to choose, according to Liberal Party philosophy. I mean, freedom is the main thing on your mind, isn’t it Tony?
“It’s all about an individual’s right to choose, according to Liberal Party philosophy.”
I wish. I really do.
Where de link?
One man’s pro-fault-divorce advocate is another’s enquiry agent spruiker!
Gah!! Next thing he’ll want to legalise sex with animals.
Can you spell ‘slippery slope’ Tony?
No Ken, clearly the next thing he’ll have to legalise is Sharia law for consenting adults.
Married at 19 and divorced at 23, I was probably one of the first people in the country to benefit from the Family Law reforms in the 1970s. Twelve months’ separation, no children, no property to speak of, did the paperwork myself, divorce uncontested and child husband a no-show, ten minutes in court … and two people who’d made a stupid mistake in their teens were able to rectify it without too much lasting damage to anyone.
My dad came with me to court, and said afterwards that he was utterly gobsmacked at the absence of pain, accusation and drama (though there was plenty of all three in private, WHERE IT BELONGED), to say nothing of the absence of lying, bullying and character assassination from lawyers for either side. The only other divorce he’d ever seen played out in court was that of a couple my parents had been friends with when young: the husband was a heavy drinker who’d taken to viciously bashing the wife and small children, and she filed for divorce on the grounds of physical and mental cruelty. My mum and dad were the two main witnesses, and it was all completely vile, and it all went on for months and months and did terrible damage to all parties.
Which is presumably what Abbott wants to bring back. People aren’t suffering enough! Something must be done!
But at least I guess indigenous folk can have tribal law now if they freely choose to do that instead of this weird Anglo stuff?
Maybe Tony’s a liberal after all.
You’ll find de link, Nick, if you look up Insiders on the ABC in the last week or two when it was discussed. Ahhh blogging, bringing you last week’s news…today!
Very droll, Mercurius.
But seriously, PC’s post reminds what a horror the old system used to be. Does Abott really think the Libs should be fighting the next election on this policy? Does he have a death wish? Have I somehow missed the hordes that are clamouring to bring this system back?
… and another silly aspect of the old laws – where divorece was mutually wished for – but an entirely ‘staged’ incident of ‘adultery’ in a hotel room had to be confected…. that was the myth at the time….
Add to the lawyer’s fees, those for all the extra hangers on …. parasites on misery, or parasites on mutually agreed parting
harrumph
Mercurius
[Personal slagging redacted] Thousands of same-sex couples already have common-law contracts defining their relationship. Big advantage being able to contract your own values rather than the nanny state’s or just replicating the mores of breeders.
As another early beneficiary of the Family Law reforms I heartily agree with Ms Cat @5.
Yes, and as the child of two parents that were not the beneficiaries of no-fault divorce and lived with the consequences and fall-out of a fault-based system in small town Australia, I agree with Pavlov’s Cat, as well.
Crap.
Step 1: Introduce an ‘alternative’.
Step 2: Note that people who choose the ‘new’ version seem to divorce less than those who choose the ‘old’.
Step 3: Abolish the ‘old’ version.
You’ll be pleased to know that the two-stream system kind of exists anyway. It’s called Catholic marriage, you may have heard of it. You can marry in a Catholic church and it’s legal under the laws of the state and the laws of the church – get divorced under state laws and you’re still married under the church. You can’t get a divorce as such, but you can get an ‘anullment’ if you prove the other party is at fault (i.e. you impress a bunch of celibates with tales of adultery etc.). What Abbott wants to do is bring Catholic law into the law of the land.
He’s got a book coming out soon, apparently. Sight unseen, people like the ditzy Annabel Crabb and the usually sensible Peter Hartcher have praised it, sight unseen, on the principle that Tony Abbott is a man of conviction because he says he believes in stuff, and it’s good to believe in stuff. Digging up ideas from the middle ages moght be somebody’s idea of fresh and intelligent thinking (or even a sales pitch for a book), but it isn’t mine.
Yes, people can choose to have no right to choose when to end their marriage. “I would like a divorce.” “No! But you can ask a court.”
Brilliant!
Mercurius
You need to get out more, pet. Thousands of same-sex couples have common law contracts to help them make decisions in their relationships. This is far more grown up than having the Nanny State sticking its bib in and imposing laws designed for breeders.
Mercurius
You need to get out more, pet. Thousands of same-sex couples have common law contracts to help them make decisions in their relationships. This is far more grown up than having the Nanny State sticking its bib in and imposing laws designed for breeders.
Greenslime! Dive, dive, dive!
Double dose!
“Greenslime! Dive, dive, dive!”
Eeeeeeeeeeek! and in stereo.
Jesus Christ Almighty! tell Tony to get off the pot!
Andrew @12
Thank you! I could not work out why on earth Abbott was interested in a fault-based system, but you’ve made it all clear. It’s not about your personal choice, it’s about his personal choice for you.
It’s not divorce that’s too easy, it’s marriage.
Tony is still sour that the voters wanted a divorce from the liberal party at the last election. He would have had us plead eternally for his crooked mob to just “go away”.
I agree with Craig Mc, marriage is too easy to get.
We need to change the term to ‘Lifetime Relationship’.
The choice from there is to enter into a loving ‘Lifetime Relationship’ through a marriage contract or common law or other.
My first marriage failed and the second nearly did, separating for three years. We are together again and we know we have nailed it this time around. How? We both read a Dr Phil book and another on how to have a happy marriage. They were both incredibly illuminating. People have so many potentially destructive behaviours which need to be dealt with.
There is a lot of stuff you need to know, a lot of skills to apply if you want a successful Lifetime Relationship. You can’t get them from watching your parents. Mostly they suck at it, tolerating each other for the sake of social norms aquired back when the world was different.
The two key elements of a loving Lifetime Relationship are 1, conflict needs to be viewed as a way of becoming closer, and 2, wake up each morning and think, how can I make this person’s life better today?
Most people enter a relationship blind. Love is blind. Blind to their lack of relationship skills, blind to substance abuse, blind to mental health issues, blind to anger management problems, blind to low EQ and blind to I hate to think what else.
Society is woefully under-educated in relationship skills, especially in the areas of Lifetime Relationships and parenting.
Perhaps Salient Green they can teach Lifetime Relationships in schools instead of Australian Values. Every child can get a copy of Doctor Phil’s book to go with their laptop. We can fund it by getting rid of flagpoles and chaplains.
Last time I had a conversation about school with anyone, it was with a teacher friend who had been patiently explaining to a class of disbelieving teenage boys what the difference was between sex and rape, so I think they’ve got a way to go to get their heads round Dr Phil.
Also, they need to be taught to read first.
LOL Ken, replace the Catechism with Dr Phils Relationship Rescue. Replace Abbott’s ‘fault based contract’ with a ‘certificate of competancy’ for Relationship Rescue.
Pavlov’s Cat, Steve Biddulph said you need to subtract 10 from the age of teenage boys and parent them accordingly. That poor teacher, like putting a bandaid on a severed artery. If a teenage boy doesn’t know the difference between sex and rape, he is fundamentally dysfunctional in terms of control, respect and anger.
‘Does Tony Abbot have leadership potential? That was the facetious question posed in a recent Age Readers’ Poll. Results were published on June 18, 2009. 266 respondents called it this way:
Yes 20%
No 80%
That’s it. I am now convinced that Abbot is a better choice for Opposition leader than ever. Get Costello back to act as his deputy.
Guaranteed laughs for at least 10 months, maybe a couple of years if we’re lucky.
They’d do us all proud.
Torquemada Tony dons the garb of libertarianism!
Just one question Tone … what pair of dills would consent to a marriage whose termination would necessarily involve finding or accepting fault?
“Oh yes Snookums, I love you to death, and always will. But beware, my love, I’ll be coming at you with a brace of lawyers that’ll make your eyes water.”
That pair of dills automatically identify themselves as unfit for marriage.
At last a policy from the Libs, the first step in their climb back to power, next will be the reintroduction of nationl service, followed by the reintroduction of the death penalty. That takes care of crime in the streets and what to do with the miscreants. I can see it the return of the golden age um pinch me I am sleepwalking i hope.
I doubt Catholicism gets any support here, but they at least force education on prospective partners prior to a wedding. They’re forced to complete a course and confront the sort of ugly realities of married life that just don’t occur to star-truck couples. Contracts don’t mean much without informed consent.
Craig@32
The mind boggles at priests of the Catholic Church famously well-versed in the practicalities and experience of marriage forcibly educating couples about what, anti-erotic body hatred and sexual repression and guilt? Hot tips for a successful life-long heterosexual partnership.
Phil, the Catholic church is comprised of more than just celibates. Otherwise where would all the new catholics come from? Issues like money, sex, career, and children which should be obvious are shockingly not obvious to a lot of couples. The same old issues are a well worn groove in the Family Court, all they have to do is make prospectives confront and share their attitudes to them.
You don’t need to have been married to understand where the pitfalls may lie. Some of us singles can only see the pitfalls!
Issues like money, sex, career, and children which should be obvious are shockingly not obvious to a lot of couples.
I seriously doubt it is possible to train anyone for marriage, Craig.
And my point stands. What do Catholic priests know about any of the things you mentioned from first-hand experience? Or am I missing something and someone else in the CC is doing the forced pre-nuptial education of which you spoke?
Yes, you are missing something, Phil – it’s not something priests do exclusively. Much of it is done by counsellors and psychologists. And I don’t see why you describe it as “forced”. Personally, I’m not particularly enamoured of marriage as an institution, but if people have to do it, then surely it’s wise to understand what issues are likely to arise.
Oh, I’m sorry, I see Craig was the first to use the term “force”.
I don’t think it’s necessarily appopriate. From the point of view of Catholic sacramental theology, marriage is an indelible sacrament, and thus requires formation and preparation just as the others do – ie confirmation, holy orders, penance, etc.
If you want to leave aside the religious context of the preparation, it’s pretty clear that a large body of knowledge and a range of techniques exist in the field of relationship counselling. That’s basically what it is.
Just a quiet word for anybody who wants to indulge in a spot of Catholic-bashing — this isn’t the place.
Tony Abbott is a boor, who happens to be Catholic. He’d be just as insufferable as an Anglican, or an atheist, or a Rastafarian. This is one occasion where playing the man, not the faith, is entirely called for!
This post is addressed to the civil secular aspects of the proposal which Abbott has put forward, which raise interesting questions (and some contradictory answers) about what choices free individuals may make, and what choices they may be constrained from making by the secular civil state.
I’d say Tony Abbott’s views on this are entirely based on his retrograde, anti-woman, anti-progressive, intrusive, authoritarian religious views which in his case are obviously deeply interconnected to his politics on a whole range of issues.
There are plenty of Catholics in politics whose religious views don’t drive their politics so obviously on a policy level as do Abbott’s.
He certainly should be called on it and as an ex-Catholic who recognises the typology he represents very well I do.
There are also plenty of Catholics who don’t hold “retrograde, anti-woman, anti-progressive, intrusive, authoritarian religious views”, Phil.
Mercurius at 38 – Tony Abbott is not a boor, although his tactics in parliament have been crudely foreceful at times. On a personal level he is cultured, erudite and very polite, anything but a boor.
But his political persona is one with a split personality. On the one hand he is an orthodox standard bearer for the far right faction of his party, allied with Julie Bishop and Nick Minchin. In this he is in sotto voce opposition to his leader Malcolm Turnbull.
Simultaneously, his politics are strongly informed by his Catholicism. This is not true of all politicians in Australia, just as 26 percent of Australian currently identify themselves as Catholics, but it was certainly true of many politicians on the ALP side at one time while their working class constituents tended to be Catholic, and their adherence to their church contributed to the great split in the ALP in 1955, pretty much on sectarian lines.
In my view, it would be wrong to assume that an Anglican Tony Abbott’s politics would be the same (a Rasta Abbott is not a serious concept) because Tony Abbott, a highly doctrinal Catholic, is rare among the conservative Liberal right, even in 2009 – his natural home, politically, would be Anglican/Presbyterian. For that reason, he will never make it to the top.
And to put all this right in the middle of the context of this thread, Tony Abbott’s raising of this issue coincides with the views of the Catholic church, which indisputably has an agenda on divorces, and I might add, one that seems to be at odds with the rest of the Australian society as a whole, including Tony’s own electorate.
The latter is an important point to make – he is going against his own interests as a politician: a potentially a suicidal predilection but one he is willing to flirt with because he is marching to the beat of a different drummer.
Yes I know that Mark and I know many Catholics who don’t hold such views including in my own family though most I know would say they are at odds with the Catholic Church hierarchy in *not* holding to such views.
I can’t think where but from his notion of his religion such a proposal can come from and it is entirely possible it does come from that and people should be able to point to that without being labelled anti-Catholic bigots which I don’t believe I am.
Pavlov’s Cat @ 26 I agree, counselling courses and reading the right books are Okay if you can and are willing to read and are sensible enough to attend classes or sessions. I would think it’s not the content of either, but rather the intention to succeed and the willingess to work at the relationship which counts.
When I read your comment at 5 I was reminded that my own late sixties divorce would have looked rather like that of your parents friends. And could have been just as messy and painful. But it was the marriage which had become messy and painful in the extreme for all of us, particularly our two children, try as we both might to protect them.
The separation followed by the court process was the easiest part. I was blessed with a very practical and perceptive lawyer who listened to me for an hour, asked me how long I’d been seeing the “trick cyclists”, made a note of the doctor who’d seen my bruises and the time of the one call out of police to a “domestic”, asked me if I’d ever strayed and made me sign a discretionary statement for the court admitting to one count of adultery. Within a month I had left the marital home, petitioned for a legal separation and in due time for a divorce settlement. My lawyer presented an open and shut case showing fault on the part of my husband.
It was all probably made easier by my being able to support myself and the children and asking for minimal maintenance and my willingness to be generous about access. But essentially credit went to a humane and peruasive lawyer who had dealt with thousands of marriage break-ups over the years and had found a way to make the existing divorce laws work for families. There was a lot of collateral damage to our lives from the marriage and its breakdown, but the divorce process itself was least to blame.
Finding my husband guilty of physical and mental cruelty and desertion seemed to me a harsh judgement even then. Technically true though it was. My own “adultery” was not mentioned. I remember in our one and only interview the lawyer did not encourage me to blame or to think of myself as a victim. (Which the psychiatrist certainly did!) He merely observed that it sounded as if things were pretty bad and all of us would be better off if I left. In other words there were irreconcilable differences and the marriage had entirely broken down.
My husband died suddenly at 85 a few months ago and our children spoke movingly at his wake. An Irish atheist, leaving a good stock of red behind for us all to share, he would have appreciated their expressions of love and stories of their weekend adventures with him thoughout their childhood. He was a great dad and they were as angry with me for leaving him as six and seven year olds can be. But life did improve for all of us once he and I had parted, and I was forgiven.
I do remember suggesting that we shouldn’t bother to get married, just live together which would have been pretty daring in the fifties. I even suggested our taking a holiday and coming back to to our friends “married”. But we did want children and in those days that seemed to clinch it. Nowadays why would you bother? And yes, I do sympathise with all those same sex couples who want the right to make the same mistakes as straight couples and live in an institution!
The research says that living with a partner tends to be good for the health and finances of both partners. I can’t recall any research, but I assume that living with partner is also highly beneficial to society and not just because this is one way of producing the population growth needed to grow the economy and to look after me in my dotage.
Despite these benefits, our tax and welfare systems are biased heavily against those that are silly enough to to admit to being a couple. For example, welfare payments are minimized by taking account of combined income while taxes are maximized by essentially taxing us as individuals.
Someone should tell Tony that the real problem these days is to get people to form stable relationships in the first place. The threat of fault based divorce would just provide another excuse not to get married in the first place.
When I got married at 21 I was so keen to marry the object of my desire that I would have agreed to all sorts of silly things that I may have lived to regret. The idea of negotiating marriage contracts or deciding whether to agree to a fault based divorce regime while I was in this state of mind is a bit frightening.
Killer comments, Patricia WA and John D.
The idea of listening to some professional’s warnings on the eve of marriage or its equivalent today about money, sex and career matters stinks and is an intrusion of corporate and celebrity culture into everyday private human relationships that is frankly completely repugnant to any sane person.
I wonder if there’s also been discussions with George Pell** – who might very well have an idea that any couple seeking to use one of his* churches for a ceremony would be requested/obliged to opt for the “fault” path under the Abbott-amended Australian family law?
* yes, I know they’re not technically “his”
** and I have no idea*** whether he has the authority to mandate this for the rest of the various dioceses around Australia
*** not having an idea has never stopped me commenting though …
haiku, you have enunciated the First Law of Blogs:
“not having an idea has never stopped me commenting though … ”
The Second Law states that most posters are unaware that the First Law applies to themselves too.
I really don’t get where you’re coming from with this, Phil. Forget about the religious and sacramental context. I won’t speak for others, but I know I always have a lot to learn about interpersonal relationships and life generally, and there are some contexts where professional advice helps. It’s really simplistic to phrase it in terms of “intrusion” and I don’t see any necesssary correlation with “corporate and celebrity culture” either. Most counsellors who deal with relationship matters are employed in the community sector, for a start.
George Pell has no authority to mandate anything outside the Archdiocese of Sydney (something most of us are very happy about in the Archdiocese of Brisbane!)… nor as often misstated, is he the “head” of the Catholic Church in Australia.
I’m not accusing anyone of bigotry, but as a Catholic, I’m disappointed at the lack of understanding displayed by some (not all) on his thread of what Catholicism actually entails (and the reflex elision of Catholicism with the worst of the hierarchy) and the tendency to go ahead and make disparaging comments anyway.
I hope I don’t have to add that I would want to have no truck whatsoever with the sorts of proposals Tony Abbott is putting forward.
Mark – as noted, I was commenting without having any idea – thanks for the clarification. What if the Pope mandates it?
There is a left-wing case for encouraging families to stay together if a marriage can be saved – particularly where kids are involved (though it’s hard to say how much influence government can have in these things). Much of the poverty in this country comes about as a result of family break-ups.
But as others have pointed out, there’s nothing to stop people simply splitting up and not bothering with a formal divorce. And what are we going to do, make people live with each other against their will? Couldn’t this be an asset-grab for the party that refuses to accept the marriage is over?
The government can’t legislate against people falling in love with the wrong person. And women just don’t need a bloke to support them financially as they once did.
As much as the Right love to lay the divorce rate at the door of the Whitlam Government – Whitlam ruined everything according to the Right – the true causes belong to the wider society.
That doesn’t make any sense, haiku, because the Catholic Church hierarchy (as noted by someone above) doesn’t take cognisance of secular divorce. There’s a procedure for annulment (which could use a lot of reform) and the Pope certainly could fiddle with that, but neither the Pope nor any Bishop could make any stipulations about how people should conform to any option they might have under secular law, as I understand it. It’s a big hypothetical anyway, as Tony’s proposal (which is not original to him, but which was cooked up in the US) is never going to happen in Australia.
I see – but could the Pope say, “we don’t recognise secular divorce, but given the options in Australia are (1)no-fault divorce and (2) the Abbott option; we direct that anyone wanting to use the facilities of the CC in Aust should at least have selected (2)”
ie the hook would be the use of the facilities rather than compliance with doctrine?
If I understand you correctly, it’s a bit of a moot point (or a non-sequitur, or just plain illogical) – but I’m trying to get a further insight into Abbott’s thinking here …
So Abbott wants to bring more misery, division and acrimony into society.
Well, I guess he reckons that if it worked for Howard…
@53 – no, I don’t think so, haiku. At least as I understand how it works. And I honestly doubt he’d want to.
This is a modified version of the ‘covenant marriage‘ system available in the US. The push there came from evangelical Christians, not Catholics, although Catholics have made use of it (eg Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal). Research done by Sunstein & Thaler (2008) indicates that take-up is extremely low — when it is available, only about 1-3 % of couples choose covenant marriage, and they tend to be people with traditional (as in conservative Christian, be it Catholic or Protestant conservative) views of marriage. I have no problem with individuals coming up with their own arrangements via private contract; if that is all Abbott is suggesting, then that’s fine by me. I don’t, however, think that’s the limit to what he’s suggesting. Colour me conspiratorial if you will.
There is a mass of empirical data indicating that unilateral/no fault divorce regimes contribute to significant drops in interpersonal violent crime; I outlined that research here.
Where I part company from the Mad Monk is in my view that everyone should be able to come up with their own arrangements — backed, of course, by well designed defaults and subject, of course, to criminal prohibitions.
Thanks for the facts, SL. Most illuminating. So the take-up rate is low, little wonder.
And I’m in full agreement with your concluding remarks.
In fact, my brothers and I are getting ready to marry our gay Mormon cousin as I write this!
SL,
I agree. I can’t help but think it’d improve the outcomes of marriage if people were forced to think about and discuss what it actually means. Some form of explicitly declaration in the marriage contract, rather than implicit rules hidden away in legislation and court rulings would certainly help force issues to be confronted before they’re too late to avoid.
Isn’t the simplest solution to remove all references to “marriage” in the civil law and to treat all “unions” in much the same way one treats business partnerships?
For those interested there could be a standard agreement where the parties could make provision for disposition of property, provisions for progeny etc in the event of dissolution and even the criteria in which the dissolution would come into play. The parties could agree to a standard arbitrator at the same time.
What religious arrangements if any, people choose ought to be entirely a matter for them.
Frankly though, why anyone would want to call him or herself married these days is something I can’t quite figure. I’ve been with the one person since October 1982 and we have two children. It never occurred to us that marriage would help. We’re not religious of course.
Ah Tony Abbott.
Anyone can make a “choice” as long as the “choice” is the same as his.
n.b. this comment is brought to you by “me too-ism” and “has nothing further to add to the discussion”
@32
I had to attend one f these. It was in turn laughable and offensive. We’re both baptised Catholics and I’ve been cynical about the church for a long time. The course consisted of a lot of wishful thinking (the funny bit) and a load of sexist (bordering on mysoginist) rubbish. Women were encouraged to prepare themselves appropriately for the masters daily return from the office. Men of course did nothing to reciprocate. Oh and the rhythm method was still being pushed, thermometer and all.
Like “choice” in education, it helps if you’re well-off. The wealthy could find a lawyer to get them out of any kind of marriage.
Sorry, I was just indulging in “class warfare”. I’d better stop before I transgress against any other right-wing slogan.
@36
“doing the forced pre-nuptial education of which you spoke?”
It is a requirement if you want to marry in a church.
Although too young to have any direct experience of the old system, I nonetheless regard no-fault divorce as one of the best (of a number of) policy legacy of the Whitlam government.
Abbott is being courageous in suggesting this because it will just reinforce to his colleagues why he can never be leader. The appetite in the Liberal Party, let alone the wider community, to do away with no fault divorce must be infinitesimal.
When Abbott’s book is published, this will just be another headache for Turnbull, as if he hasn’t got enough of them. There will be immediate demands for him to renounce Abbott. If he does, he further alienates his Right. If he doesn’t, he opens the door for a scare campaign along the lines of a “Liberal Party proposal” to put hidden web cams in marital bedrooms.
Incidentally, a number of posters seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that no fault divorces are synonymous with civilised, no bitterness divorces. Unfortunately, that is not true. As any family lawyer will tell you, there are plenty of extremely bitter divorces. Indeed one of the most bitter and acrimonious divorces that I am aware of was of a family lawyer I am acquainted with, and his wife. He was the cause of 90% of the acrimony, using his professional expertise to make things as difficult as possible.
Of course, fault divorce would just make it much worse.
But Mark @ 40, even though many individual Catholics don’t hold these views historically, the Catholic Church, as an institiution, has held “retrograde, anti-woman, anti-progressive, intrusive, authoritarian religious views” and still does. Of course, they haven’t been alone in this, but it does seem that Abbott’s views are inextricably tied with his particular brand of Catholicism.
Patrick B, is it really a requirement of the Catholic Church that you have to undergo a sexist education course if you want to marry in the Church? Good grief!
if you read Barry Maley’s work the objective is clear: as women are more likely to seek separation on general grounds of emotional estrangement a fault system will make it harder for women to divorce men. if women violate the terms of the marriage contract then they will automatically lose their rights to children. Maley insists that the welfare of children is not the important factor but rather punishing those who violate the contract. He also seems to equate violence and adultery as contractual violations.
The prods made me do a course before marriage. All I remember of it is my bride’s sitcom-worthy inability to make an unqualified apology, even as part of a staged exercise.
I’ve been doing some family law lately. I really don’t think people get divorced with the carefree flippancy that people like Tone imagine. As to chosing upfront, surely the whole point is that people have changed their minds, to the point where they’re both willing to give up about half their material posessions just for starters.
Quite right Fran @ 59: A standard agreement for formalizing domestic arrangements amongst consenting adults would be OK with me. The thought of negotiating such an agreement with my dearly beloved negotiating wizard when I was of sound mind is a bit frightening. Trying to do it when my mind was frazzled by my desire to marry this amazing woman would have been madness.
I am a specialist Family Lawyer, and have been for around 10 years.
The idea of forcing people to ‘force’ fault in a divorce is absurd, and has no rational benefit.
Abbott is basically trying to run an argument that if people are compelled to remain together (ie. in a marriage) against their will then this is a net plus for society.
And this is something which is a choice!!!!
@66 – Fine, the Catholic Church is more than the institution.
And, sorry, while I have no doubt that Patrick B’s unfortunate experience is being reported truthfully, why would it automatically be assumed that every such program run under the auspices of the Catholic Church is unprofessional and/or objectionable? I know for a fact many in Brisbane are neither, as I was saying earlier. But apparently anecdote always gets a free pass as generalisable fact in these sort of discussions?
I gave a quiet word at #38. Now I’m giving a stern word.
Is there anybody here who wants to register their disapproval of various policies of the Catholic Church hierarchy? Fine. Great. Do it somewhere else, capice?
For the last time, this discussion is about the civil, secular, even political ramifications of Tony Abbott’s little gambit. Anyone else who wants to air their personal disapprobation for the Catholic Church can do it **somewhere else**.
Hello Mark, and welcome to the internet.
You’ve lost the plot Mercurius. You’re sounding like Luther.
I’ve always thought the marriage ceremony as obscene and irrelevant as legally registering a friendship or the desire to have sex with someone for a very long time even though it probably won’t be forever but who thinks of that at the time.
The idea of getting counselling from some misery guts CC-employed community worker who’ll warn me about debt and anger and dissatisfaction and all the mundane realities I no doubt may face as a married woman simply strikes me as absurd, useless in advance of (maybe) experiencing these things and an exercise in active projected joylessness.
Except Mercurius @ 73, it’s impossible to separate Abbott’s polices from his particular sort of Catholicism. But, I’ll take heed of your stern word and go quietly away.
Mercurius, I agree with Fine. Abbott’s idea to re-introduce fault-based divorce is informed by, rather than coincidental to, his Catholic beliefs.
You can’t talk about Catholicism in a post about Tony trying to legislate for it?
Sorry to take your toys away. I kyboshed the comments about Catholicism because:
a) The link is so obvious it doesn’t bear comment, much less repeated comment. (Abbott is Catholic! The sky is blue! News at 11…).
b) The comments don’t add anything to our understanding of the civil, secular issue — what choice of relationship adult individuals can make for which they receive legal protection and privileged status from the state. If I have to draw you a picture, try skepticlawyer’s comment at #56 for an example of constructive discussion.
c) Personal opinions about religion are just so fascinating to read. And the more strident and declamatory you can make them, the better! /sarc
d) Tony Abbott doesn’t represent the Catholic Church, or their policies, in any capacity except in his own mind.
e) Plenty of Catholics disagree with Abbott’s proposal.
f) Plenty of Catholics disagree with Church policies re: marriage.
g) The only place Abbott represents anything officially is as an MP in Parliament — and that’s where he can potentially have a real effect — so it’s the civil secular aspects of this that are pertinent to us here.
h) Disrespecting an entire faith is not a constructive contribution to this (or any) discussion.
For those who mistook this thread as a chance to get something off their chest about Catholics, I’m sorry I disappointed you. I don’t do dog-whistling — you’ll have to try Andrew Bolt for that caper.
It seems as though Abbott has done the ususual Australian Pollie thing of importing a policy from whole cloth via the US, rather than bothering to think things through himself. Katha Pollit writes
So, it’s just copying the US yet again with little thought for the merit of the policy or the applicability to the Australian situation, although it seems as if it’s destined for failure in the US as well. Interestingly, Blankenhorn and his Institute of American Values do not seem to be connected to the Catholic church, although it is hard to see what church he does belong to: I suspect they’re fundamentalists of some stripe, but not overtly Catholic.
(And why is it, tangentially, that US wingnuts always have such wonderful names?)
“And why is it, tangentially, that US wingnuts always have such wonderful names?)”
Because Helen, this is the doctrine of predestination in action. So when you see a name like Blankenhorn, you can see the very finger of God having written “idiot” on it’s forehead from birth. That much we know. Verily.
So, does this mean we can slag off right-wing Evangelists, but not right wing Catholics? *ducks and runs away*
Crikey, bolshie women on LP no less.
No women are not allowed to talk about one of the most misogynist institutions in human history. Why? Because Mark and Mercurius say so!
“We will determine who gets slagged off on this website, and the manner in which the slagging is accomplished.”
Like his fellow political ‘fundamentalists’ Abbot’s problem is that he wants to follow two irreconcilable deities – the god of materialism and the marketplace and the god of the Bible, with all the inevitable myopic contradictions and inconsistencies that involves. Interesting to know how one reconciles Adam Smith and the often described’second Adam’ of the Bible(?)