Big Government Conservatives Impose Morality On Texans
Tweet
Man, leave these people alone.
When Candace Aylor wanted a divorce, she would not have desired to take a marriage crisis counseling class and certainly would not want to pay for it.
‘You’ve got to pay for daycare, you’ve got to pay for the divorce, you’ve got to pay for a new place to live all on your own and even as a professional, it was impossible for me. I had to get help,’ she said.
A bill filed in the Texas House would require married couples with children seeking a no fault divorce to take the 10-hour class.
The fee could run up to $200 an hour, depending on the course provider.
Republican Representative Warren Chisum authored the bill.
‘If we can save a few marriages, and I think we can save more than a few, but if we can save a few, it’s worth our effort,’ he said.
An abused spouse with documentation like a protective order or police report, such as Aylor had, would not be required to take the class.
Most women in abusive marriages don’t have that kind of documentation though by the time their divorce cases finally end up at the courthouse.
38 Responses to “Big Government Conservatives Impose Morality On Texans”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Remember, Republicans are against big government… except when they’re for it. And that’s pretty much anytime they can impose their own morality on others.
Fuck them and their hypocritical bullshit.
“Just don’t expect us to pay for it.”
“Remember, Republicans are against big government…except when they’re for it.”
This is especially true when it comes to any issue somehow related to sex.
The left: Taxpayer funded abortions – Allright!
Taxpayer funded marriage counseling – Hell no!
Cripes.
BTW, I’m opposed to both.
These classes sound like a damned good idea.
Making them mandatory, though, is just plain wrong.
Kind of like seat belt laws — I don’t support laws that protect the individual from doing something colossally stupid and self-destructive. I am a seat belt militant, but I don’t need the law to tell me to buckle up. If you wanna be an idiot, be my guest. The government has NO business trying to protect you from yourself against your wishes.
J.
Jay, I was going to make Jay Tea’s point, which shows how stupid your argument is. On the other hand, as far as the seat belt laws go – I think you could make the argument that the lack of a seat belt isn’t just a safety hazard for the driver but to others. At the very least the law should apply to belts for kids.
Jay, the bill in Texas we’re talking about here is not just “taxpayer funded marriage counseling,” but “taxpayer funded marriage counseling REQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT.” There’s a difference.
You can make that argument about just about everything. And, while each individual “safety of others” law sounds all good and wonderful in and of itself, they lead to a whole jumble of rules and laws which restrict liberty and eventually make everyone a criminal. For example, a parent in Washington state driving with their 11 year old in the front seat is facing a $124 fine, even if the child is buckled up. Or, Massachusetts originally passed a seat belt law which made not wearing a seat belt a secondary offense (you couldn’t be stopped for not wearing a seat belt, you had to be stopped for some other reason). The state later amended the law making seat belt a primary offense. Given the history of the Mass police to engage in all sorts of racial profiling you’d think that anything which made it easier for the police to pull you over would be opposed.
It is against the law to disable a driver’s side airbag unless you seek a physican’s recommendation to deactivate the airbag, get permission from the NHTSA to have the airbag deactivated. A dealer can’t do the deactivation without this permission. If you were to get a wild hair and deactivate the airbag in your car you can face criminal charges for it. This is not a device which represents a danger to other people in the vehicle if you deactivate it (like not using a seat belt does). And yet you’re facing some halfway decent fines or court costs if you choose to do a small modification to the car you own.
All for safety.
“If you wanna be an idiot, be my guest.”
Not if you don’t have health-insurance. I’ve always thought not wearing a seat-belt should be within someone’s rights as long as they have proof of comprehensive medical coverage in case of an accident. Otherwise, if they were to go to the ER and have the taxpayers pay for their health-care, they should be required to buckle up. Simple as that.
(I actually know this guy who’s a complete Republican wing-nut, and yet he had his life saved by taxpayer subsidized medicine. Can you believe that kind of hypocrisy? I know, it’s insane. Hard to believe guys like this actually exist.)
That said, Republicans have never been about smaller or less intrusive government. Quite the opposite, in fact. If you don’t want the government in your bedroom, vote for Democrats. Despite their flaws, they aren’t hypocrites on issues of sex and personal freedom like the party of Vitter, Craig, and Foley.
And when you allow the government to tell you what you can get for your healthcare, you allow the government to tell you what you can’t do which will cause you to need it. Jaim, when healthcare becomes a wholly gov’t run industry, I hope that whatever vice it is you enjoy becomes forbidden to you because of it’s associated health care costs.
The left: Taxpayer funded abortions – Allright!
Taxpayer funded marriage counseling – Hell no!
Jay, did you really miss the point that badly? Or are you just trolling?
“Jay, did you really miss the point that badly? Or are you just trolling?”
I can’t tell if he’s lying or stupid. I really can’t.
Normally when someone reads a post and claims it says the exact opposite, I assume they are lying. But I think Jay Caruso is simply that stupid.
A person is more likely to require expensive medical care if they don’t wear a seat-belt. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say that if a person can’t provide for his own health-care in the event of a crash, they should be required to wear seat-belts. It’s not all that different from requiring drivers to have car insurance. If government/tax dollars are going to pay for something, government should have a say in arranging how the money is spent.
I’m not really seeing the slippery slope on this one SFC B. Believe it or not, I think free market principles can sometimes be helpful. If a health insurance company wants to charge more to cover a smoker, that seems reasonable. Even better, use incentives. Give people a cost reduction on their health insurance if they lose weight, for example.
Jay: The left: Taxpayer funded abortions – Allright!
Taxpayer funded marriage counseling – Hell no!
Y’know, you really show how weak your position is when you start arguing against something nobody argued for. Who said anything in favor of taxpayer funded marriage counseling?
Yeah, yeah. I know. Someone points out Republican hypocrisy and you have to respond with “Look, over there!” ’cause you really can’t come up with anything better, can you?
Jay Tea: Kind of like seat belt laws — I don’t support laws that protect the individual from doing something colossally stupid and self-destructive. I am a seat belt militant, but I don’t need the law to tell me to buckle up. If you wanna be an idiot, be my guest. The government has NO business trying to protect you from yourself against your wishes.
I tend to agree with you and have even argued exactly the same thing in discussions. Seat belts, motorcycle helmets, etc. Don’t pass laws designed to protect me from myself.
But then it was pointed that when greater injury is sustained because someone didn’t wear a belt/helmet at least some of the cost of fixing them up and caring for them can often fall to the taxpayer. So, yeah, while I still lean heavily toward making people face the consequences of their own stupidity I can see a case made for seat belt laws benefiting the larger community.
But mandatory counseling for divorcing couples? Nope, can’t see any reason why the state of your marriage makes any real effect on me. Can’t see any reason why the gov’t should be involved in who gets divorced any more than they should be involved in who gets married…
Jaim: A person is more likely to require expensive medical care if they don’t wear a seat-belt. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say that if a person can’t provide for his own health-care in the event of a crash, they should be required to wear seat-belts. It’s not all that different from requiring drivers to have car insurance. If government/tax dollars are going to pay for something, government should have a say in arranging how the money is spent.
I don’t disagree on the principle, but how would you enforce this? An uninsured person still (violating the law) refuses to wear a seat belt and gets thrown thru the windshield. Do the folks in the ambulance just refuse to treat them? They arrive and before they start working on the patient they first have to check their wallet for proof of insurance? And if not, then how do you stop the uninsured from being a financial burden to others if, despite insurance status, they are going to get treated?
I tend to think the answer really lies more toward educating folks as to why they should wear seat belts than in trying to weed out those who don’t. There will ALWAYS be idiots who refuse to be safe and I think the best you can aim for is to minimize their numbers by convincing as many as possible to not be stupid (I know. But I can dream, can’t i?).
Godtards being Godtards
When the government REQUIRES people to GET abortions (As it dose with this “counseling” bill), then and only then will cons have a leg to stand on, with this attempt at the distraction from the point.
Force a woman to raise a kid for the rest of her life?
Force a couple to stay together for ever for the rest of their lives?
It’s about control pure and simple.
When the government mandates abortions.
Like it is mandating counciling in this case then cons will have a leg to stand on.
Nope, can’t see any reason why the state of your marriage makes any real effect on me.
Plenty of studies show that a kid is more likely to grow up well-adjusted in a non-broken home. Which means the offspring are less likely to commit crime and more likely to become a taxpayer. So the same logic that compels seat belts and motorcycle helmets most definitly applies here.
When the government mandates abortions like it is mandating marriage councilors then they will be a proper analogy until then it’s just the usual con game of False equivalence
So the same logic that compels seat belts and motorcycle helmets most definitly applies here.
And the government should probably stay out of both (except in the case of seat belts/helmets and minor children.) My dad wouldn’t wear a seat belt for years because his best friend in high school was killed by one in a freak accident. Thankfully as the years passed and the belt systems improved, he began wearing them again. Used to worry me to death as a kid, though.
It is against the law to disable a driver’s side airbag unless you seek a physican’s recommendation to deactivate the airbag, get permission from the NHTSA to have the airbag deactivated. A dealer can’t do the deactivation without this permission.
Then why does mine have a keyhole where I can disable it anytime I want? Methinks you’re wrong.
As far as mandated marriage counseling, it isn’t taxpayer funded, it’s individually funded. YOU gotta PAY for it.
When are the cons going to figure out that you cannot legislate morality?
SaveFarris: Plenty of studies show that a kid is more likely to grow up well-adjusted in a non-broken home. Which means the offspring are less likely to commit crime and more likely to become a taxpayer. So the same logic that compels seat belts and motorcycle helmets most definitly applies here.
OK. So explain to me how forcing someone who has been abused to pay for marriage counseling with their abuser leads to a “non-broken” home.
Duros62: When are the cons going to figure out that you cannot legislate morality?
As soon as they actually get some?
Less snarky answer: We actually legislate morality in some sense all the time. The whole “thou shalt not kill/steal” thing. I think a far better approach isn’t to argue whether morality is being legislated but whether the law is to protect people from others or from themselves.
Plenty of studies show that a kid is more likely to grow up well-adjusted in a non-broken home.
Recent statistics show that two of the last three presidents were products of broken homes.
There’s an argument to be made that seat belt laws are designed to protect other people rather than yourself. If two drivers get into an accident, and one is killed, don’t you think that the surviving one would have some psychological issues stemming from the incident? Same for motorcycle helmet laws. So, increase the chances of survival, decrease the chances of psychological trauma to others. Sounds fine to me.
Maybe a better idea would have been for Texas to require classes for couples before marriage and a 10 day waiting period, that is if they are really concerned about keeping couples together.
This just sounds like another way of making $$$ from people’s misery.
It turns off your passenger-side airbag, not your driver’s side.
My 1998 S-10 and 2006 Malibu had the same feature. My 2005 BMW and my wife’s 2003 Focus do not. None of them will allow you to deactivate the driver’s air bag though. For that you need to go a dealer or shop and pay to have it done, with the necessary paperwork as well.
On a related note, ever try to remove the yellow warning stickers from your sun visors? Pain in the ass now. The ones in the BMW and the Ford aren’t just stickers but a pressure-inked label that is pressed into the material of the visor itself. It will come off with some elbow grease and acetone, but it fades the material on the visor. So, thanks to that, I can either have an eyesore of a warning label, ruin the material, or order a replacement part with the European spec so it doesn’t come with the label (I have no idea where they put those warnings on the models in Europe).
We let the government tell us how we may and may not do so many other things in our lives, why shouldn’t they also be allowed to tell us what we need to do when we want to end a marriage? If you think that protecting children is enough of a reason to restrict the rights of adults, then I don’t understand why you think it is so unreasonable to require marriage counseling prior to some divorces. It’s for the children after all.
Well this is just a barrier against ending unhealthy marriages, targeting poor people who don’t have 2000 dollars to spend on classes to find out they still don’t want to be with this complete tool anymore.
Correct.
You’re not even in the same ballpark with this reason though. Rather than worrying about some possible psychological trauma or PTSD from surviving an auto accident where someone is killed, try being more practical. The seat belt keeps you in a position to retain some control of the vehicle in the event of an accident. Without that restraint even a medium impact could cause the driver to lose control of the vehicle from simply not being in the driver’s seat anymore. Also, in an accident, anything in the vehicle can become a projectile, including passengers. If you have someone sitting behind you in a car without a belt, and the vehicle, for example, rear ends the car in front of it, that person is very likely to come flying forward at whatever speed you were traveling. A 180 pound person, sitting in the rear seat, moving forward at 30 MPH after an accident can injure or kill another passenger. Something like 10% of unrestrained passengers caused injury to other passengers in accidents.
If psychological trauma were justification for laws requiring seat belt use, what possible laws could be inflicted upon us to protect passers-by from seeing accidents?
Then why does mine have a keyhole where I can disable it anytime I want?
It turns off your passenger-side airbag, not your driver’s side.
Ah yes. I see what you mean.
SFC, that also is true. I don’t think that they are mutually exclusive, nor is one more valid than another. I do agree, however, that yours is a simpler, and more practical reason for seat belt laws.
SFC: If psychological trauma were justification for laws requiring seat belt use, what possible laws could be inflicted upon us to protect passers-by from seeing accidents?
What happened to practicality? Clearly seat belt laws make sense, and are really not so cumbersome in the interest of protecting people in the ways we’ve discussed above. However, you’d be hard pressed to figure out reasonable laws that would protect passers-by from seeing accidents on the road. Plus, those passers-by would probably not have the same guilt or psychological trauma as someone who was a part of the accident themselves.
Plenty of studies show that a kid is more likely to grow up well-adjusted in a non-broken home. Which means the offspring are less likely to commit crime and more likely to become a taxpayer. So the same logic that compels seat belts and motorcycle helmets most definitly applies here.
The problem here is that you’re assuming they’re getting a divorce for shits and giggles. If two people want to get a divorce, chances are both of them being under the same roof is only going to cause the issues the couple have to get worse. Divorce doesn’t break families, couples that get divorced were already broken to begin with.
The real issue I have with this is that they force the couple to pay for the counseling, rather than the state pay it. What this does is, say, the wife wants to divorce the husband, and the husband is the one with the job. He can just refuse to pay for the counseling, and in effect force the wife to stay with him. The reverse can happen, but would be much rarer.
“If psychological trauma were justification for laws requiring seat belt use, what possible laws could be inflicted upon us to protect passers-by from seeing accidents?”
You are abusing Reductio ad absurdum.
And if you don’t know what that means, I suggest you look it up.
It was an absurd concept and it deserved to be treated as such.
SFC, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Although I don’t know why I give a shit, you’ve demonstrated yourself to be the sort of person that I try to avoid in my everyday life – a smug, inflexible, cocky idiot who thinks that his assuredness is a substitute for genuine analytical thought. Like W, you don’t give a fuck about what the facts are, you hold to your position, believing that there’s no possibility of you being wrong. Eat shit.
Cockfag.
(Seriously, who calls someone a cockfag? WTF is wrong with you?)
Me: “You are abusing Reductio ad absurdum.”
SFC B says: “It was an absurd concept and it deserved to be treated as such.”
Thank you for admitting you are using a logical fallacy in your argument. It makes it a lot easier to ignore it.