More Oklahoma fundamental-ness, this time from someone we already know, Sally Kern:
Scheduled for introduction in the 2010 legislative session by state Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, House Bill 2279 would restrict the "use of incompatibility as a ground for divorce" in Oklahoma.
The bill would not allow for divorce on the basis of incompatibility if:
- There are living minor children of the marriage
- The parties have been married 10 years or longer
- Either party files a written objection to the granting of a divorce
This is why that guy who's trying to ban divorce by ballot initiative in California isn't all that funny - Christian fundamentalists really do want to ban divorce, especially no-fault divorce. When we're allowed to divorce for any reason we choose (because we're adults), it implies that relationships and marriages are about helping us grow, be fulfilled, and creating a family we don't hate. That's the exact opposite of the fundie ideal marriage: a union between one man and one woman, out of sexual frustration after abstaining until the age of 18, together because that's just the way life worked out.
Working on "incompatibility" (or "no fault divorce," also known as the divorce equivalent of "abortion on demand") is just a way to nibble on the rights feminists worked hard to gain in the last century throughout the Western world. Today it's incompatibility in certain cases, tomorrow it's incompatibility at all, and, if they have their way, divorce is eventually banned.
There are plenty of other faulty assumptions worth remarking on in that bill - marriages that have lasted more than 10 years seem to be more valuable than shorter ones, minor children, I'm guessing, are assumed to be harmed by divorce itself in such a way that living with parents who hate each other is better, one person has a right to force another person to stay in a marriage - and I'd expect the Oklahoma legislature to be sane enough to reject that bill.
Marriage has changed over the last century. It's no longer about peasants getting stuck with a partner, one partner producing children, the other working outside the home; instead it's about fulfilling various emotional and cultural needs that two adults can have.
When the fundies say that same-sex marriage will destroy the institution of marriage, this is pretty much what they're talking about: removing reproduction from marriage and rejecting sexist gender roles in marriage solidify the notion that marriage is not, in fact, about producing a McFamily and living with it. It makes clear in a way that no-fault divorce hinted at that marriage is actually about making two people happy.
And we can't have that. The fact that red-staters get divorced just like everyone else, though, should be completely ignored. Like most moralists, they can't even live up to their own standards and consider the rules for the other chumps who need to be kept in line.