Discouraging Divorce This Way Will Only Discourage Marriage!

From the website: “Kids Against Divorce.”

Kids Against Divorce wants to do so much more than raise awareness…we want to start making changes for the better. As Steve Jobs said, “Those who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do.”

And so we feel marriage license laws need to be amended such that a marriage license be treated as any other license and held to a minimal level of required education so as to better prepare individuals going into a marriage to fulfill their new roles as spouse and potentially as parent, to furthermore protect children given that marriage is the foundation of a family unit, and so as to reduce the billions of dollars taxpayers spend annually on divorce – as well as a tax credit offered to married couples voluntarily completing continuing education.

I left out the brightly colored letters which make this whole statement look childish. Nevertheless, this seems to be a serious endeavor. It is a Colorado ballot measure and the group wants to get the same changes in other states.

It is crazy.

First of all, most licensing schemes are stupid interventions designed to discourage access to the benefit of those who already hold a license. They are just a union-like scheme to encourage a de-facto cartel. In the case of driving, they are a way of controlling and tracking drivers.

Second, anything that raises the cost of marriage will discourage marriage. Conservatives should know this.

Third, we have several other social crises developing in our nation. Divorce is only one of them. What about out-of-wedlock births? If you discourage marriage will you really discourage single-parent homes? I highly doubt it.

Fourth, in answer to the Daily Caller’s question, yes, the proposed law is “too nanny state.” If the government can set conditions for a marriage license then it can set conditions for having children.

Fifth, the way to reduce divorce is to simply give partners the right to consider their marriage a binding contract. Two business partners cannot simply dissolve their relationship in a way that robs the other person. We need laws that require spouses to have at least the same obligations to each other that they have to their credit cards. If you think getting rid of no-fault divorce is too radical, fine. But don’t make our situation worse by discouraging marriage.

Of course, the typical liberal reaction is just as stupid as the proposed law:

“This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard,” said Alyx Reese-Giles, who was married for the third time in November. “The government has no business deciding what education people should or should not get before entering into marriage.”

Then is it the government’s business deciding what education children should get? And why is it the government’s business punishing a wedding cake decorator for refusing to agree with same-sex “marriage.”