sorry, disgusted. and animal. wasn't taking anything out on either of you. i was just trying, in my illiterate way, to say that the bill is STUPID, regardless of who introduced it. that's all.
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
I agree with disgusted, again. I probably wouldn't have mentioned party if somebody else hadn't done it first. So it appears this legislation doesn't fit a template somehow? Hmmm...
4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
TheDiogenist Feb-12-13 7:54 PM
Rational post. I agree.
I find that alot of counselors, have more problems,then the people they counsel.
6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
loco...You seem compelled to comment on my posts...I like that! FYI..I read several papers daily, watch a little news and log on to regional newspapers to see commentary from different areas both considered liberal and conservative...I know who wrote and sponsored this bill prior to my post...Does not change my view.
locomotive Feb-12-13 10:39 AM
"(t)hat the government should not involve itself in care of souls?"
I really don't think you know what this means.....I myself know the difference between spiritual interference and moral/economic policy making...Do you?
1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Well the law does not force a couple to still cohabit while they wait, so on a practical level an abused spouse would not necessarily have to endure another six to twelve months. It's just an unnecessary delay to finalising the details. Somebody means well with the measure, but it would likely have been more effective to provide for (optional) counseling services rather than make every couple seeking divorce go through sessions. Plus the bill doesn't seem to make any exceptions for couples who already have tried counseling...
4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
And if a physical assault occurs during the 6 month period, can the legislature be held accountable as an accomplice?
After all they forced the couple to remain together, they are responsible for the situation created by them.
Lawsuit time filed by the injured party. The state has a billion dollars, might as well let those who are going to divorce to get their fingers on some of it, by hook or by crook.
Looks like that will happen too.
5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
That situation for a year, for the children, would be terrible. The government is poking their nose in every situation. It is time for their noses to get pinched.
9 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
it was kingdom and WA that threw party line into the discussion. I clarified. Take it out on one of us, not animal who happened to comment. but, I agree, stupid runs on both sides of the aisle.
3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
yes, animal, the author of this bill is a democrat, but it doesn't matter if he is democratic, republican, green, communist or independent. stupid is stupid.
1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Marriage is only important to the government because of ownership of taxable properties. I don't think the government likes it when we use ways to get out of capital gains and estate tax.
Gays cannot get married, however the state gov't fills it must step in to stop the divorce rate for married couples of heterosexuals? Go figure?
3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
animal, you have an interesting take on the issue: wait a year before marriage. Hmmm...
And, yes, isn't it about time that all the liberals here should loudly and proudly acknowledge that a DEMOCRAT sponsored this? Who would have imagined a DEMOCRAT not knowing "(t)hat the government should not involve itself in care of souls?" Maybe the memo didn't reach everyone yet, Veritas...
8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Disgusted: Finally someone admits its a Dem. behind this bill,THANK YOU, all you REP. haters owe an WE ARE WRONG AGAIN SPEECH! Now: a better bill would be to put a 1 year waiting period on before marriage!
8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
There are a bunch of RINO's in ND, but to be fair, the sponsor of this bill is a democrat. What is really strange is that two of the co-sponsors are normally very conservative. Go figure.
7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
I thought the repupublicans were for less gov't intrusion into our lives?
6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
I am beginning to think that all people elected to a position in the state legislature need to undergo an mental examination before they can occupy a seat in the legislative body.
Either they are crazy as loons or just plain nuts or both.
9 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
If it wasn't for all these ridiculous bills introduced, they could be out of there by the end of February. Instead, they will drag the session out until the law says they must go home.
9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
"That the government should not involve itself in care of souls. In support of this argument he presents three main reasons: (1) individuals, according to Locke, cannot divest control over their souls to secular forces, as God does not appoint the magistrate; (2) force cannot create the change necessary for salvation, because while it can coerce obedience, it cannot change one's beliefs; and (3) even if coercion could persuade someone of a notion, it would not help for the salvation of the soul, because then birth would be related with salvation"
Written in 1689..Still misunderstood unfortunately by people who are in charge of writing laws...Sad!
4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
How in the world do these people get elected consistently? Because they have an "R" after their name and no one is paying much attention!
9 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Every Legislator supporting this bill should take the Pope's position and resign.
In fact, I think every Legislator should have to complete 6 months of intense study on legislating morality concepts....Might give them some perspective on the issue in particular they could debate this;
"Government is instituted to promote external interests, relating to life, liberty, and the general welfare, while the church exists to promote internal interests, i.e., salvation. The two serve separate functions, and so, must be considered to be separate institutions"
10 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Amen, MH. They're working hard to spend that budget surplus, one piece of toshy legislation at a time. Eventually we'll all be quite Christlike by their efforts.
6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
total bull chit. they are elected to represent us, not cram their personal agendas down our throats.
10 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Thank god these rich old white guys only meet every 2 years....UGH
10 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
It failed during the previous session and hopefully it will this time around, also.
301 4th St SE , Minot, ND 58703 | 701-857-1900