Arkansas Blog

So the religious red part of the state gets divorced more. hmmmm

No surprise that Arkansas voted for the guy that divorced his wife for the other woman.

I'm sure they will propose that divorces be banned to protect the "sanctity of marriage," right?

Good point, Max.
When EVERYBODY is divorced (and we have to get there if the trend continues), who is going to be able to adopt those children that the voters think need only to go to a home with a female mom and a male daddy? I wonder how many of the folks who voted for that ridiculous thing have been, or are, divorced, themselves? I wonder if we could get the mom & dad couples who did vote that way to take up the slack in adopting chilleruns, and pick up a few extra ones while they're in the process.
It's either that, or ship 'em all off to Bradgelina's house.

If they all got covenant marriages -- that would solve all their problems right?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6440961/

They all must be Gay!

Monitor their bedrooms and take away the children!

It's all part of the "gay agenda" to ruin these traditional marriages, don't ya know?

>>Arkansas' marriage rate is nearly double the national average - 15.1 per 1,000 population compared to the national rate of 8.3, but the state's divorce rate is among the highest in the nation at 6.5 per 1,000 population, according to the governor's office. The national average is 4.2.<<
from hoglawyer's link.

All things being equalized.

Not so high.

All Republic states have higher divorce rates.
Higher poverty rates
Higher welfare rates.

Higher theocratic instances.

.

Too bad the other side isn't susceptible to reality-based argumentation. These statistics indulge us, but it's unlikely they''ll have a significant impact on the other side.

"There's a lot of transients. Our major corporations, there are great benefits. But what happens is they come in, they leave. Also, you have a lot of kids getting married earlier. They get married younger. Where you have younger marriages, you also have a higher divorce rate," said Oliver.

I'm not sure the 40/29 piece makes a whole lot of sense. One of you math majors out there check their math....seems a little screwy to me. And this statement above.....do it mean all those new windmill blade plants are bringing in people just on the verge of divorce and as soon as they get their furniture arranged the fighting starts? And one thing leads to another and next thing you know they've FK'ed up Arkansas's divorce rate by getting a divorce and THEN moving to California?

Arkansas has more kids than other states? Is Arkansas a sex addict? Are we Duggars all? Also from what I've read kids are NOT getting married earlier, well...maybe Duggar kids. When Ma was young kids got married at 17 and 18. When I got married it was 20 and 21. My daughter is almost 22 and very very few of her friends have run off and got married. I'm thinking maybe it was a just a slow news day. IS ARGON GAS UNDER YOUR HOUSE KILLING YOUR FAMILY? HEART WORMS ANYONE?

It's been said that every family is dysfunctional in its own way. Hence, at clicky, an insight into the dysfunctional Republican family.

Remember, Hog fans: "When you wish upon a star, your dreams . . . come . . . true . . . !

Remind me how the new law works.

Anne and Bob marry and have 4 kids.
Bob dies.

Chuck is Bob's brother.
He has a long term relationship with both Anne and the kids.

They date awhile and marry.

She dies, attacked by an emu.

Does Chuck's single status prevent him from adopting the kids of his wife and his brother?
Should they break the kids into 4 lots to make it easier to find foster homes.

And allowing gays to marry damages the sanctity of marriage in what way?

A lot of comments have been flying around the blog about the ability for single people (divorced, widowed, or just pathetic like myself) to adopt children under the new adoption ban. Let me clarify. As I understand this bullshit law to read, single people ARE able to adopt, regardless of how they became single. The only people that are not able to adopt are individuals who are:

unmarried, but living with someone that they have sex with.

That would allow Chuck who was tragically widowed by an unseemly emu attack to still adopt the children, because he's not living with someone with which he also happens to be bumpin' uglies.

Basically, under this law, the act of sex makes a potential parent unfit. Personally, I think this was Jerry Cox's attempt at making everyone else as miserable and celibate as he likely already is...or maybe Jerry's just wanting to put his application in for Chief Bedroom Policeman because he's just kinky like that. Don't anybody start getting wild ideas about putting your resume in for the Chief Deputy spot...Ronnie Floyd's got dibbs...

Cartoon of the day.....click on Cato

Incidentally, gay, commie, yankee Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate. Perhaps it's the presence of those non-christians, Catholics? Maybe we need to check the STD rates? Oops, moral Arkansas is way above the national average. Teen pregnancies and sexual activity? The just say "no" abstinence state of Arkansas makes rabbits look like Puritans. Infant mortality? Third world countries' babies survive better. I haven't even started talking about the Biblical sports of child abuse, spouse abuse and rape. Jerry has done a bang-up job of bringing "morality" to Arkansas. Simple humanity is a world better than Jerry's morality.

Arkansas - poor, pregnant, purulent, and proselytized. Thank you, Family Council for doing the devil's work.

Again, if you want to protect marriage...end divorces. Period.

But wait, then the violent crime rate goes up...assault, battery, murder....

Maybe if we let the gays marry they'll be more stable than the straights and that will bring down the state's divorce rate.

Wouldn't that be a kick?!

another great carton Cato. thanks for sharing.

Again, if you want to protect marriage...end divorces. Period.

But wait, then the violent crime rate goes up...assault, battery, murder....

Posted by: Paco

If straight people do it on behalf of the Bible.. it's ok then.

You're right E.S. - they are spoken to in the most "Divine" of fashion. LORD help us all!

BlueDonKey,

Then if Charlie is "bumpin' uglies" with his hand as Kinsey reported back in the 50's, is he unfit or is he exempted because he lives with his hand?

Please, elucidate?

We are riveted by Charlie or Charlotte's hypothetical dilemma.

Click.

Doc,

That's not a question for anyone as base and as obviously sexually deviant as all of us normal folks out there. That's just going to have to be something that will be determined by Bedroom Sheriff Cox and Deputy Ronnie. To give a bit of guidance, however, I would imagine the verdict is going to be based on the "offense's" duration, voracity, etc. Jerry's going to need you to issue a statement in triplicate on this one.

As far as exemptions, short of Charlie entering into a civil union with his hand (ok, that's a funny, meandering statement) he would not be given any type of pass.

Any more questions for Blue?

Any*Mouse, the answer.
It would not be a marriage at all because homo's can't marry and can not adopt.
Stop asking such stupid questions.

Maybe if we let the gays marry they'll be more stable than the straights and that will bring down the state's divorce rate.

Wouldn't that be a kick?!

Posted by: SkyPilot

keep on dreaming, sky, because gays divorce at the same percent as normal people do.. gays are not normal.

Anyone who divorces their spouse and remarries commits adultery and they will be judged as such as long as their spouse shall live. A judge cannot undo what God hath joined together.

What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. In the Greek this is in the imperative tense. It is not a suggestion.

People who call themselves Christians yet allow themselves to divorce for ANY reason are betraying the Gospel. You are embracing the values of the world and not the commands of the Lord. Repent of your sins and embrace the teachings of the Gospel.

Well.....it's simple then. If me or my wife fall out of love, one of us has to die or risk getting on God's shit list. Will I shoot her or stab her? Will she poison me or cut my brake lines? Wouldn't it just be easier to have a few less rules and let humans be humans? Can we have a God-less year and see how that works out for everyone?

Murder will free you from the sin of adultery? I don't think so. You either obey God or you disobey him. The consequences of unrepentant sin is spiritual death.

"The consequences of unrepentant sin is spiritual death."

And to think all this time I figured you for a Christian (or at least someone that thinks they were).

Interesting, isn't it?

The more some folks become powerless by clinging to division, hatred, the past, the more powerful they want their god to become.

What they won't try to do in the world--make it better, change it for the good--they want their god to accomplish by smiting right and left.

It's almost as if that big old angry man-god in the sky is some kind of projection of the powerless, hateful, little men on earth who have made him in their image: he's who they'd like to be but cannot ever be, because they won't think, love, reach out, hope, or do all the things that make a person human. Just hate, scream, condemn, rage, and ask their god to join in with them.

Sad.

Muddling....aren't you saying that some folks who are bitter are clinging to their guns and religion? Sorta sounds like....I'm unhappy so I want you to be unhappy too. What a waste of life.

I'm sort of saying that, DBI. But my main point is that people who believe they are given sole responsibility to control the world, and who have lost control and are only now realizing it, tend to invent a god in their own image.

Angry, frustrated, punitive, out to get others. Anyone they/he can blame for the loss of control.

I'm fascinated that those same folks then try to hook that god and the religion they are creating to the Christian gospels. Which are all about how we don't ever really control anything, and should never try to control others. And how we should overcome the tendency to punish others. And about how God is not interested in punishing but saving.

"Strangelove, you say, "People who call themselves Christians yet allow themselves to divorce for ANY reason are betraying the Gospel."

See, this is the problem with literalism. The gospels themselves CONTAIN an exception--a reason to allow divorce. That saying you keep quoting about the indissolubility of marriage? It's in Luke.

But Matthew adds an exception to the saying: divorce is permissible for the reason of porneia. Unfortunately, porneia is one of those words, like the ones that some folks try to translate as "homosexuals," that no one quite understands.

It literally means "dirtiness" or "filthiness."

And then beyond the gospels there's what's called the Pauline privilege, where one can divorce a spouse who is an unbeliever and interferes with your practice of religion.

One New Testament, three teachings on divorce.

Muddling: Don't get your hopes up too high about logic and reason changing any views on this blog.

A certain poster said above that homo's can't marry, but in the very next post declared that gays divorce at the same percent as normal people.

I thought about asking how people who can't marry manage to divorce. But I decided against it when I realized I've have to read his answer to try to figure it out.

Sky, thanks. You make an excellent point, which I hadn't even thought of when I read that comment.

What I thought of instead was a question about how anyone has statistics on the gay divorce rate when gay marriage is a new and isolated phenomenon in our society.

Far as I know, what statistics do exist just don't bear out the claim made by the poster. But never mind; let's not confuse ourselves with the facts.

I appreciate your sane voice and sane contributions.

So we have become a nation where someone who quotes the commands of the scripture relative to the sanctity of marriage is considered 'hateful' and not a Christian? Well, we have certainly come full circle. I don't consider it hateful to remind people of the very vows that they made to their wife to 'till death do us part'. These were sacred vows that you promised to keep before man and God and now you condemn someone who reminds you of those vows.

Excuse me, strangelove, but you seem to have missed my point entirely.

I didn't object to your quoting "the commands of the scripture."

I asked why you selected ONE scripture passage and then chose to make it absolute, when there are others easily found that contradict your representation of "the" command of scripture.

You say, "People who call themselves Christians yet allow themselves to divorce for ANY reason are betraying the Gospel."

I pointed out to you that Jesus himself--in "the" Gospel--DOES allow an exception to the absoluteness of marriage. It's called the porneia exception. Then I noted that Paul adds yet another exception, called the Pauline privilege.

Clearly, one cannot take a sole scripture verse and erect it into THE foundation of all moral law, or of secular law.

And if Paul can take Jesus's clear teaching in the gospels and alter and develop it in response to conditions that arose following the death of Jesus, then what is to prevent those of us who are Christians from doing that today?