Obviously! It should carry MMS and strict for 2nd++ offense..
Yah, first fine, then jail, mild jail time.
If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!
Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.
Originally Posted by Jerry
For example, if two parties have children together, and the compelling interest of the state with regards to that marriage is the upbringing of children, then allowing the two parties to divorce would be in direct contradiction to the state's interests.
The basic premise being given is that anything that acts in opposition to the state's interests, damages the state, and should be seen as a criminal offense.
Therefore, all divorces, which can only exist in opposition to the state's interests, and therefore DAMAGE the state, should be viewed as criminal offenses.
There is plenty of evidence, often cited in defense of marriage, that shows raising a child in a broken home can be quite damaging to the child.
The belief that the state has a compelling interest in marriage coupled with a desire to outlaw adultery can only mean that the state has a vested interest in keeping marriages intact. Therefore, divorce itself should be a criminal offence, by the logic described.
In essence it is: "In offering jail time as deterrence, the state does have a compelling interest in that marriage for the upbringing of children…..hmmm…."
Except I've applied this same logic to divorce in general, instead of a single factor of divorces, for the sake of consistency in defending the state's interests in marriage.
It's a simple fact: The only way the State could possibly be damaged by adultery is if the adultery leads to a divorce since the state's interest in the marriage hinges entirely n the upbringing of children. For example: My wife banging the neighbor without me being aware of it cannot possibly, in and of itself, harm the state. Damage can only occur if it hinders the state's interests: i.e. the upbringing of children.
If the state's interests in the upbringing of children is strong enough, I might even be COMPELLED to remain in a marriage even after the infidelity in order to assure the environment that the state desires: i.e. my interest in dissolving the marriage is outweighed by the State's interests in not dissolving the marriage. Not only that, but I may even be compelled to "pretend it didn't happen" for the sake of the children.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
So you are very much incorrect that one cannot be cheated on unless one has the government involved in their relationship.
I'm all for it. It would virtually eliminate state-run marriages altogether and that's a great thing.In light of some recent arguments, I’m re-thinking my position. The state is a signing party in the marriage, so if another party breaches the license, doesn’t the state suffer damage? If so, that’s a ‘criminal offence’. It would be easy to add up the costs in government assistances and juvenile crime and call these damages to the state.
In offering jail time as deterrence, the state does have a compelling interest in that marriage for the upbringing of children…..hmmm….
Last edited by rivrrat; 02-16-09 at 02:34 PM.
Last edited by Jerry; 02-16-09 at 02:40 PM.