Nonsense. There are tens and thousands of different religions that don't all agree with one another on just about everything. How is "religion" the problem here? WHICH one? WHICH religion? WHICH freedom?Religion in government erodes freedom
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Nonsense. There are tens and thousands of different religions that don't all agree with one another on just about everything. How is "religion" the problem here? WHICH one? WHICH religion? WHICH freedom?Religion in government erodes freedom
It has to do with custody and child support.But what is the reason for this? Why should pregnancy affect the status of either party in any way? If an non-pregnant couple can finalize a divorce, why does pregnancy change anything?
I guess either parent is what you mean.Because they haven't realized that sometimes the worst place for a child is with the parents (it tends to take psychology and social work to reveal that, two things Reps and Cons aren't too keen on or big into).
And as I asked before, has anyone known anyone with a child who had a quick divorce of less than 60 days?It has to do with custody and child support.
Speaking of that, did you know that the Puritans did not allow the government to have any say in their marriages?So? That doesn't mean they won't try and tighten control. It's a crappy law to begin with, and two people in a relationship don't need the government's, and certainly not the church's okay to break up. Church needs to stay out of government, that don't directly involve religious issues.
And I can see how they felt that way at one point in time. But there is no excuse for that now. With DNA we know who the father was. Married or not. In fact let's say that a couple started a divorce and the woman wanted to stick it to her husband. Divorces take a while and she could get impregnated by another man and try to force her husband to pay child support for a child that was not his. There would be no justice in that. If the woman was beaten and abused by a man a divorce will make it easier for her to protect herself from him.It has to do with custody and child support.
Yes. But there's a reason I say social work taught me a new way to hate parents and a lot if times the kid needs services because it's the parent doing the damage. But try telling a parent high on the idea the parent knows best they are wrong.I'll wait.
Like I have asked over and over and over again, has anyone with kids involved EVER gotten a a divorce quickly? I don't believe so.And I can see how they felt that way at one point in time. But there is no excuse for that now. With DNA we know who the father was. Married or not. In fact let's say that a couple started a divorce and the woman wanted to stick it to her husband. Divorces take a while and she could get impregnated by another man and try to force her husband to pay child support for a child that was not his. There would be no justice in that. If the woman was beaten and abused by a man a divorce will make it easier for her to protect herself from him.
In other words, even if a couple marries and they have a kid, the father is still on the hook. He has to pay child support. If they are getting a divorce and she gets impregnated by another he should not have to pay child support. If a couple that never marries and splits up and the man wants visitation rights he can prove that he has those rights with DNA. No marriage necessary. Making decisions based upon who the father actually is protects the child without forcing an unwilling marriage.
No, it doesn't.It has to do with custody and child support.
Like I have asked over and over and over again, has anyone with kids involved EVER gotten a a divorce quickly? I don't believe so.
Two of the three ways to tell if a baby is the father's involve risks and costs that the mother may not be willing to take on. The third way involves considerable cost. Just to clarify.And I can see how they felt that way at one point in time. But there is no excuse for that now. With DNA we know who the father was. Married or not. In fact let's say that a couple started a divorce and the woman wanted to stick it to her husband. Divorces take a while and she could get impregnated by another man and try to force her husband to pay child support for a child that was not his. There would be no justice in that. If the woman was beaten and abused by a man a divorce will make it easier for her to protect herself from him.
In other words, even if a couple marries and they have a kid, the father is still on the hook. He has to pay child support. If they are getting a divorce and she gets impregnated by another he should not have to pay child support. If a couple that never marries and splits up and the man wants visitation rights he can prove that he has those rights with DNA. No marriage necessary. Making decisions based upon who the father actually is protects the child without forcing an unwilling marriage.
Everyone, quick! Move to New Hampshire! Oh wait...Certain states offer a smoother road to splitsville, including New Jersey—where Weinberger practices—which has no mandated “cooling off” period. “We have a ‘benchmark’ of one year from filing to decree in the ‘typical divorce’ case that includes assets and children,” she says. For simpler cases in which spouses reach an agreement, the time to divorce could be weeks; more complex cases could extend beyond a year. “But there is no mandated—’this is how long it will take you to divorce’—law in New Jersey,” Weinberger says.Other swift states include New Hampshire (which has no minimum processing time), Nevada (which only requires six weeks of residency and minimum processing of 42 days), and Alaska (which has a 30-day minimum processing time for residents), according to the Weinberger Divorce & Family Law Group.
If You Need a Divorce, These States Are the Fastest…and the Slowest
Waiting periods, mandated separations, residency requirements—such speed bumps can slow down the road to divorce.www.rd.com
Like I said, has anyone ever known anyone with kids who got a divorce quickly?Everyone, quick! Move to New Hampshire! Oh wait...
No, it doesn't.
Or if there is some backwards law still on the books in these backwards states that law should be removed.
A parent has the same right to custody or visitation whether they were divorced before the child was born, or after, or even if they were never married. It does not make an iota of difference if the child was conceived when the couple were married, divorced, or were never married. It would not matter if the couple signed the divorce papers and then went to the bedroom for one last time and conceived a child.
Take that up with someone else, not me. I didn't write the law.And likewise, the child has the same right to child support regardless of the marital status of their parents, it is completely irrelevant.
I'm just going by what the link said.Take that up with someone else, not me. I didn't write the law.
Interesting how you completely ignored New Jersey.Everyone, quick! Move to New Hampshire! Oh wait...
Like I have asked over and over again, has anyone personally known anyone with kids to get a divorce quickly?Interesting how you completely ignored New Jersey.