America discriminates against men.

[Boris_natasha]

The following article caught my attention. It deals with men being thrown in jail for not paying child support on time. The problem I think most people ignore is that the very term "deadbeat dad" makes it clear that men are less likely to get possession of their kids. I do not believe women are less likely to disolve a marriage or mess around on their husband. Maybe men need to make a better case for defending their rights. Don’t pay support, go directly to jail

In the case of child support, time and again I hear of both men and women repeatedly refusing to pay even the smallest amount, even if they're making good money. One of the disturbing things about ugly divorces is that ex-es take their anger between each other and let it interfere with taking time for the children.

[Boris_natasha]

Yeah, that's pretty routine. As a term of art, it's not technically the same as "child support", but functionally the legal consequences for nonpayment are pretty much the same. I would further note that in Utah, I've seen judges be very sympathetic to dads who claim they can't find work--rather than committing them to jail forthwith, courts in Utah county often say "OK, come back in here in 120 days, and show me proof of employment or else a job search log showing me what you've been doing to find a job". I'm not sure why Texas is being so tough, if the linked article is correct--maybe they've got a lot of single moms getting welfare from the State who wouldn't need it if the dads paid their child support, and Texas thinks they can ease their budget by putting the fear of God into its deadbeat dads.

I used to live in Texas. It seems like for, at least the past 20 years, people have been getting away with not paying child support, and not paying for even the littlest thing the child needs. What is their usual response? "It's not my responsibility. You or your family do it."

[bl8tant]

No bl8tant. I'm saying it has been that way and should be that way. Mothers rights trump fathers rights, in "most" cases. And deservedly so.

Then I guess I join Suzie in not understanding why you think it's deservedly so.

[bl8tant]

I am going to say something that is going to tick a lot of readers off. But before you go too far with your misunderstanding towards me for what I am saying – try to understand Jesus and his teachings.

Here is my statement – if there is a divorce – especially in a family with children – the blame for all the ill effects and bad things that come to the family and children lie directly with that parent that holds and harbors any bitterness towards the other parent. If there is any possibility for good to come it will be from that parent that forgives and loves the other parent as much as they love and have compassion for the children.

I might agree more with this if you and I could come to an agreement on the difference between "ill effects" and "natural consequences." If the children are unhappy because their parents are getting divorced, I'd say that falls into both categories-- but the blame doesn't belong to the innocent spouse, but rather to the one whose fault the divorce is.[1]

[1] Wow, grammar fail for me.

[beefche]

Then I guess I join Suzie in not understanding why you think it's deservedly so.

Because apparently having internal reproductive organs trumps external reproductive organs.

[Guest]

Just out of curiosity how does the church handle that?

Would a divorced and remarried Catholic get exed for adultery, or would it be more like a WoW violation or failing to pay tithing in the LDS church.

From what I understand, someone who is a Catholic and divorced isn't allowed to take Communion, even if that person didn't remarry. On rare occasions, someone might get a marriage annulled, but it's a difficult thing to get as one has to prove that they never should have married in the first place.

The only people who really get excommunicated in the Catholic church are priests who decide to marry an adult of the opposite gender.

It's actually more than that. A Catholic cannot get divorced in the Catholic church, therefore, he/she can't remarry in the Catholic church unless the spouse has passed away. So, the only recourse for Catholics is to get a divorce under civil law - which is not recognized by the church. If a Catholic remarries civilly when the ex-spouse is still alive, then that person is an adulterer and cannot partake of any Catholic sacrament/ordinance until such time that he/she goes through confession (repentance). But, of course, to repent of such sin, one has to dis-engage oneself from the adulterous relationship.

An annulment is something different. This is saying that original marriage was not valid. There are only a few reasons that a marriage can be considered invalid - that is, if it breaks one of these - 1.) both parties must have been of sound mind when the marriage was performed, 2.) both parties went into the marriage willingly (nobody is putting a gun to their head, etc.), 3.) both parties are eligible for marriage (i.e., both spouses are both single, etc.), 4.) the marriage was performed by proper Church authority. Annulment is issued by the papacy.

Excommunication in the Catholic church for church members is pretty close to LDS excommunication except in Catholic doctrine, the Catholic baptism cannot be effaced, therefore, you do not need to be re-baptized to rejoin the church. Excommunication of priests/bishops/pope is a lot more grievous and is more drawn out process both in exit and re-entry. There are a lot more reasons for a priest to get excommunicated from the Catholic church other than getting married. Pretty much all the reasons that apply to all church members plus additional schism caused by unrepentant misuse of their priesthood authority.