From: mh5r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Mary Hart)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Commitment, etc
Date: 13 Sep 92 18:07:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.AegzDqy00VB4AD028u
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Judy Leedom Tyrer writes:
**************************************************
The REAL PROBLEM that everyone needs to attack is the complete lack of 
commitment people in our society are capable of making.  We are a society
of little babies who scream and whine whenever things aren't going our way.
We jump into bed with narry a moment's thought and then piss and moan when
asked to be responsible for our behavior.  Hey, we don't have to worry.  Good
old Uncle Sam will clean up our mess.  Hey, and if Uncle Sam were
reasonable, I wouldn't be so miserable.  "It's not MY fault!"  

If anything, I think the legal system should become even more antagonistic
to couples who are unable and unwilling to live up to their commitments both
to each other and to their children.  It SHOULD hurt like hell and you 
SHOULD feel raped.  Because that is exactly what is happening to your children.
Their lives are being uprooted and torn apart.  They are being used as weapons
in the war between ex-spouses.  They are being abused and abandoned.  

The only way to solve this whole custodial parent/ child support/ joint
custody nightmare is to get rid of no-fault divorce and require couples to
live up to their marriage contracts the same way we make businesses live up
to their contracts.  If you go bankrupt, then the courts take over.  But 
people who are bankrupt don't have the right to complain to the courts about 
how they are being bailed out.  They just have to accept the bail-out in 
whatever form it takes.  And maybe, just maybe, next time they'll know enough 
to live up to their commitments.
*********************************************************
I couldn't agree more (and I'm amazed that there wasn't any discussion
of this issue, given the vehement arguments last summer over whether
people should get divorced or not.)

No-fault divorce sounds wonderful, and suggesting that it be gotten rid
of sounds illiberal, but what we have is a situation where we have
rights without responsibilities.   Imagine: A parent is deciding whether
or not to divorce the other parent.  The man or woman is weighing things
in his/her mind.  The person thinks, well, I'm sort of unhappy (or maybe
even very unhappy).  On the other hand, maybe, with a lot of work, we
could work things out.  And it would be better for the kids if they
could have a situation where both parent are available (7 days a week).

Then the person thinks over what will happen if they go to court over a
divorce.  Well, it's not going to hurt financially so much- I may even
be better off.  (And maybe I'll get to dictate where the other spouse
can live.)  I'm not going to lose there.  I can have the kids whatever
amount I want.  My rights will be protected there.  I don't have
anything like losing the kids to worry about.  I have absolutely nothing
to lose.  So why should I  work hard to save the marriage?  I'm at least
as well off if I leave.

On the other hand, if the individual is not protected from all the
consequences of his/her actions, then that person may be inclined to
work a little harder.  

Mary Hart
mh5r+@andrew.cmu.edu