Congratulations and plea for "justice for all"

(I thought you might like to see and discuss this letter which I sent to one of our La. Representatives.)

Representative Mike Johnson
Louisiana District 8

[COLOR=#000000][FONT=times new roman]

Mike,

CONGRATULATIONS on your unopposed election. What a mighty work God has done for you, your constituents, and for Louisiana citizens. I rejoice with you in giving Thanks to God.

I notice that your emphasis for the Life March on January 17 is “Defend The Defenseless”.

I have a deep concern for our unborn defenseless citizens, and continue to do all that I can to stop the Torture-Murder of our unborn. But I also have a deep concern for our Living defenseless citizens.

You know from our previous communications that this concern is for the ones who go into a civil family court with no defense against a No Fault divorce, usually Fathers and children.

If your neighbor were to file suit against you for killing their dog, and you knew before you got to the courtroom that

…no proof would be presented that you are guilty,

…you would not be permitted to offer a defense,
…the judge would rule in their favor, and
…no appeal would be possible…
that something is seriously wrong with the procedures.

There would be an absence of Due Process, something that is protected by our U.S. Constitution.

There would also be an absence of Equal Protection under the law, a protected right.

You would also know that a person’s rights cannot be taken away under “color of law”.

Our Louisiana marriages and families MUST be protected from our ILLEGAL No Fault Divorce laws.

This approach to divorce - this 40 year Experiment - has been a total Disaster, and the children have been the ones who have suffered the most.

Divorce is not in the “best interest of the child”.

La. Act 743 went into effect January 1, 2007, which was a step toward eliminating the devastation that divorce heaps on the children.

It was enacted in the “best interest of the child”, but statistics indicate that it had little effect on the number of divorce suits filed.

This means that our children need additional help to prevent the breakup of their home and family. Our fathers and children need legal help against these unjust laws.

We are still seeing the fallout from divorce in the lives of our children. You know from the evidence of Facts that are presented by Judge Darrell White and Gene Mills of our Louisiana Family Forum, as well as from our Louisiana Commission on Marriage and Family, that a child in a single-parent family is:
…twice as likely to drop out of school,
…three times as likely to become pregnant as a teenager,
…six times more likely to be in poverty
…12 times more likely to be incarcerated and
…three times as likely to be expelled.

As a result the State continues to have to deal with teen:

  • pregnancy and births
  • alcohol and drug abuse
  • violence in the home
  • street violence
  • school dropouts
  • crime
  • incarceration
  • suicide
  • homelessness and runaways
  • state institutionalization.

All of these resultant conditions continue to put a strain on our state budget.

We who care about our citizens must give attention and protection to ALL of our citizens, not just the unborn and those who need adoption.

[COLOR=#652191][COLOR=#440062][COLOR=#000000]J. Shelby Sharpe, a lawyer with more than 40 years of litigation experience involving federal and state constitutional issues, has written: “No-fault Divorce is the only claim recognized in the state courts of the United States where the due process clause for
protecting a fundamental right (which marriage has been found to be by the United States Supreme Court) is ignored and patently disregarded”. [/COLOR][/COLOR]

Snipers, murderers, drug dealers, rapists and pedophiles get to hear what they have done wrong, and offer a defense, but there is no defense against a divorce.
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000]Saddam Hussein was afforded more justice in his trial as a criminal than are Americans challenging the granting of a divorce in defense of their marriage and family. [/COLOR]

We MUST restore Due Process and Equal Protection to our Family Courts in order to truthfully end our Pledge of Allegiance with “liberty and justice for…all”…

…or continue to tell a lie each time we repeat that Pledge.

(“Carpenter”), advocate for divorce law reform

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Uh, I have to disagree.

I’m all for changing the incentives to divorce inherent to “no fault divorce” which heap huge benefits to women or the less-working spouse to do so if they’re unhappy.

But let’s remember something: divorce isn’t a crime. What it is, strictly legally speaking, is the dissolution of a contract.

Dissolving contracts is something that happens all the time between business partners and corporations. These are not “no fault” the same way divorce acts right now, but nor do they typically call for trial by jury or disallow dissolving a contract because one side didn’t wish to.

The law can’t force two people together if one doesn’t want the relationship anymore, but what it can stop doing, is quit waving a carrot in front of their faces so as to encourage them to split up.

The issue isn’t making them stay together, but…JUSTICE, and no one is standing at the front door with a shot gun saying “You can’t leave”.

Even in property settlements that come to court by agreement a judge has to look over and approve them to protect the rights of BOTH sides. In No Fault divorce, only the rights - actually wishes - of the petitioner are protected.

Divorce is presently only based on a want: I want out. No other case in court is settled via a want.

Then, you have the issue of State Obligation of Contracts. The marriage license is put in the hands of the State for protection, not destruction.

Regarding that “unhappy” issue…happiness is a choice, not somethgng that someone does to you. If a person is unhappy in a marriage they have chosen to be unhappy, and the one they are choosing to leave should not be held responsible for their leaving.

I agree the system shouldn’t be biased to one party or the other, unless one can be shown to have violated the contract in some way, as happens in other contract disputes.

I do not however feel the state should be in the business of “protecting” marriage licensing, that’s just a quixotic premise that’s been netting nothing but failures since it began in 1923.

Honestly, I do not think general the state of marriage has improved since then, so I don’t think State itself has been doing the job of “steward” terribly well. Better just to re-adopt the common law model.

Not to detract from your other points and this may open a can of worms, but marriage is much more than a contract; it’s a covenant.

2 Likes

Quite true, but NOT to those who want to eliminate the entire concept of marriage as the basis for civilization.

1 Like

FC, you do my heart much good, calling it a Covenant. Marriage is a God thing and His Marriage Covenant is a God thing. It may seem like too simple an analogy but marriage is like clothing. You can make it of whatever you choose and put it on any way you want to, but in the end, it’s still clothing. Even if you go to a JP to say “I do”, it is still a God thing.

He thought up marriage, drew the plan, made a list of materials and specifications, made marriage with one man and one woman, tied the knot, and it was for a lifetime…no one else for Adam and Eve to go to. He has not changed the plan and no one has His approval, authority, permission or power to change it.

The only reason the State is involved is because we subject our marriage into their hands by sending our license to the state. Early marriages in the USA were hand written into a marriage book and that was it.

Several of my friends have drawn up an Ecclesiastical Covenant Marriage agreement which is given to the church and the church is responsible for its care and protection. I need to check and see how that is working. Lawyers and the courts won’t touch it because they don’t know what to do with it or if they can make any money doing that.

1 Like

Sure, but the Contract is all the government deals with, all it can be expected to manage, if even that.

The whole idea of a marriage “license” was invented to fleece a bit more money from the public. It serves no other practical purpose. I have a marriage license on file in TWO States. My first in Texas when I married my wife the first time and a second in Hawaii where I went through the whole process–including taking out another license and getting a judge to waive the 3-day waiting period of that time–on our first anniversary. We had planned to do that every year in a different state, but decided not to go to the expense in 1968 when we were living in North Carolina.

Which itself demonstrates why states would entertain ideas of allocating licenses to Gays. More revenue.

Marriages licenses were begun in Mississippi as a means of denying mixed marriages.

No, no, and no.
The reason that marriage licenses were brought about is because of divorce proceedings. The misused, abused, who had need to get out of a religious contract had no legal means on which to dissolve it. They sought the aid of the courts to dissolve it, but the courts had no jurisdiction over the matter, so could do nothing about it, leaving the abused person to stick in a marriage, no matter how abused.
Henceforth, accepting a legal jurisdiction to where divorces, not necessarily marriages, could be settled in a court of law, rather than within the confines of one’s religious affiliates.

All of which isn’t to say that I go for “No Fault Divorce.” “I’m bored,” or, “He doesn’t thrill me anymore,” is no reason to divorce.
Abuse, however, is. No child should be brought up thinking that it’s okay, and that’s how marriages go.
That’s a stop gap right there and then. No excuses. Get away.

But there was a time that only churches could ‘okay’ the dissolution of a marriage, and the man had all the say so.
When he was the one beating the daylights out of his wife.

Can you blame the individuals of the separate states thinking there was something wrong with that venue, and, therefore, seeking a way to fix it?

I don’t. And if you think it’s the courts that is the problem, perhaps you might want to do a little soul searching to learn if the problem might be you. As perfect as you think you might be, if somebody wants to leave you, you, not she, has some fixin’ to do.

There is NO NEED for the government to get involved in either marriage or divorce. If your marriage “contract” is sanctioned by the church, it’s a simple matter to seek your divorce–if warranted–through the church as well. Perhaps that would eliminate divorce due to “boredom,” which I suspect is the REAL reason lots of marriages dissolve. Physical abuse is CERTAINLY a legitimate ground for a divorce, as is adultery by either marriage partner. Ennui is not.

I’d love to agree with that, except who is going to tell the errant parent that they have to support the children they brought into this world?
Not that that works, anyway.

Besides which, what church is going to be willing to dissolve a marriage when the contract reads “for better or worse until death do us part?”

And what about people who are married by The Justice of the Peace? I guess they have no recourse when the wife gets her front teeth knocked out and head split open, leaving her wandering in the night with two babes, not yet 2 and 3 years old, only told, by her family and so-called friends to "stand by your man."
Nothing could make me more sick to my stomach than that.

What has that to do with anything, 2cent? As far as I know, aggravated assault is STILL against the law and there are private agencies all over the country placed there to support battered women with safe haven, beds and food. There are provisions for divorce to be found in the Bible itself, for that matter.

1 Like

How is the church supposed to dissolve a marriage that was performed by a Justice of the Peace?

Which goes to my original point. The government shouldn’t be involved in “marriages” in any fashion whatsoever. You want a “marriage?” Go to a preacher…not a JP.

You make it sound so easy.
As it so happens, the Justice who married my husband and me also happened to be a minister. So, the marriage was in accordance to the Bible, but not under the auspices of any particular religion.

I guess what we have then is a ‘civil union’; not a marriage?
(That’s a serious question. I don’t condone making fun of the subject. Nor am I in any way, shape, or form, about to condone “marriage” - in the true sense of the word - for homosexuals. That is most definitely not a marriage. Civil Unions? Okie-doke. But don’t call what isn’t a marriage a “marriage.”)

As for the abused woman, YOU try getting to a cop shop that’s 45 minutes away by car when you don’t have one - nor a phone - with two wee tots on your hands; and meanwhile terrified out of your ever living mind, while trying to protect them - sneaking them out of a bedroom window at 2:00 in the morning, as you try to convince them that it’s 'just an adventure.'
GOOD FREAKING LUCK!

I wasn’t describing things as they ARE…just proposing a way to get the government OUT of the “marriage” business. Of course, a JP marriage IS a marriage…today…but what if the government didn’t have anything to DO with marriage? You’d have to find a preacher, priest, rabbi, imam–whatever–to perform your marriage, the record of that union would be kept by the church–which might issue you a certificate proving that you’re married–and if you wanted a divorce, you’d have to do so through the auspices of the church…which would likely make it MUCH harder to get so people wouldn’t be prone to marry just because they’re in heat.

As for the abused woman, just how does a government-issued marriage license better protect her than one issued by the church if her husband wants to beat the hell out of her?