They are driven to enforce their idea of biblical standards on everyone including other non-religious people and their children. In these laws they target divorce to force women to stay in bad marriages, and they target sexual education to lie to children and teach them religious ideas of morality instead of biological facts with modern understandings. This is what letting religious groups take over government brings. We are in a fight for the direction of the nation, forward into a progressive future or backward hundreds if not thousands of years regression into a new dark ages. Hugs
But Republican State Rep. Tony Randolph (below) isn’t finished imposing his religious beliefs about sexual sin onto everyone around him… and this time, his legislation stands to harm everybody, gay and straight alike.
Last week Randolph introduced HB 1158, a bill that — if made law — would remove “irreconcilable differences” from the list of permitted grounds for divorce.
Make no mistake: while the law affects people of all genders, its consequences will disproportionately fall on married women, who are more likely to end up in situations of abuse and control. Blog editor Cory Allen Heidelberger, writing for his online publication Dakota Free Press, put it like this:
Citing irreconcilable differences is a lot less wearing on couples and their children than forcing them into a court battle to prove who did what wrong to whom. Under HB 1158, a controlling jerk who doesn’t want to let his wife seek a better situation apart from him can say, “You think I’m not good enough to be your husband and raise our kids? Go to court and prove it.”
The law would also amend grounds for divorce related to felony conviction in a subtle but crucial way. In the past, divorce was permitted if one spouse was convicted of a felony. Under the new law, criminal conviction would be grounds for divorce only in cases of incarceration.
Through this change to the legal framework for divorce, Randolph would make life more difficult for everyone of marrying age in South Dakota. But never fear, he’s got something for the young people in the form of HB 1162, a bill to make parental consent necessary for students to opt in to sex education:
Any parent or guardian who wishes to have the parent’s or guardian’s child participate in any planned instruction or presentation on sex education or sexuality at a public school shall opt-in by filing written permission with the school district board of trustees. The board of trustees shall make available the appropriate forms for such permission within two weeks preceding the instruction or presentation.
The bill specifies that, alongside some basic provisions for learning about anatomy and reproduction, educators must:
(1) Stress the importance and benefits of abstinence from all sexual activity before marriage;
(2) Stress the importance of fidelity after marriage for preventing certain communicable diseases and strengthen the bond between spouses [sic];
(3) Communicate that sexual abstinence is the only effective method of eliminating the risk of unplanned or out-of-wedlock pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases;
(5) Inform students of the benefits of ceasing sexual activity if a student is sexually active;
(6) Discuss the possible physical, emotional, economic, and legal consequences of sexual activity and advise students of the laws pertaining to their responsibility as parents to children born in- and out-of-wedlock;
(7) Provide information pertaining to the risks associated with sexual activity, including sexually-transmitted diseases or infections;
(13) Teach refusal skills and mechanisms to avoid sexual activity.
In other words, the students who opt in will get a crash course in sexual shame and fear-mongering that doesn’t leave them any better able to make responsible decisions about sex, whether or not it’s within marriage.
As important as what is being included is what’s being left out — namely, any useful information about how to mitigate the risks being laid out in such careful and loving detail:
Sexual abstinence programs may not include models of instruction, based on risk reduction, encouraging or promote or provide instruction on the use of contraceptives products or methods. Materials and instruction may not be excessively graphic or explicit and may not include explicit descriptions of sexual activity that encourage erotic, lewd, or obscene behavior.
More information at the link above. Hugs