Because the adults can't act like adults during a divorce. Rational thinking gets tossed out the window because it turns into a pissing match. There needs to be an unbiased outside party to ref the separation. Even if one side of the party is open and willing to be fair; the other side usually isn't. Most the time both sides want to win out on the other. I mean shit, look in this forum. Look at how many stubborn people there is just in this small community? It sucks, but is what it is.
So, why can't a mediator/arbitrator with binding powers decide the case? Why does it have to be a judge?
Civil Unions are "separate but equal." In other words, not really equal. The divorce/kids thing is a teeny part of it. Probate. Medical decisions. All sorts of marriage related law. Why should anyone care what the state calls it?
Because sometimes there needs to be that final say when both sides will not agree. And there starts out an arbitrator with children. In California 1.) you must take a cooperative parenting class 2.) you must see an arbitrator to try and work out custody without attorneys to try and work out custody. This has a 90% fail rate btw. 3.) if you cannot agree on arbitration; then you go to court. Most the time the judge doesn't make the decision because the parents eventually get their head out of their ass and agree on custody. But I've learned from my personal experience and what I've seen in the court rooms; the parents usually have that one parent that gives in because they finally realize how this is effecting the children. 2.)
Why they care is enough. They do. The state never defined the term marriage. Now is not the time for them to do so. So call it what every you need IF you need the state involved, and I sure as hell don't see a good reason for the state to be involved. Let the Justice of the Peace preform unions between a man and a goat if you must, but there is no reason to call it marriage. That term serves about 88% percent of the population that would have their church do the blessing. No need to stick the stick in their eye just to please a Gay, and then more to follow.
But everyone would get a civil union from the government if they wished. Marriage would be for religious institutions. How is that unequal?
You do realize that many gays would still get married in a church that accepted them, or just have a ceremony with family and friends that accepted them, hence the end result would still be Gays and Straights having their unions referred to as marriages. No difference in the outcome.
All must go through mediation before you can even see a judge. I already said that. The success rate of mediation is very small.
When it's binding arbitration, there's no difference between that system and a judge, other than one is based on common sense and the other is based on the law. I have a friend of mine who is stuck in a three-year divorce because of the legal system. The judge desperately wants to rule in her favor on the civil end, but is even more terrified of having her decision overturned by the state Supreme Court. So, she keeps giving this person bites at the apple until she can find a legal basis to support what is plainly obvious to everyone. Again, the state doesn't need to be involved in these matters.
Anything agreed in arbitration is legally binding. Problem is the arbitrator cannot intervene. They can only suggest and the two parties must agree. If they can't, then the judge must make the ruling.
Not true. You can go into binding arbitration, and where there is disagreement, the arbitrator decides.
You are talking about two entirely different things. You are talking about business arbitration; which is entirely different than family law.
And why can't family law be just like business arbitration? Rather than see things how they are and say "no", why not think about how things should be and work to change them?
Because in family law, you have love involved. It's a little different if its just separation of assets. When children are involved, neither side thinks the other should have them more. The declarations are different and there is way more at stake.
It makes no difference to the arbitration process. When you enter binding arbitration, someone decides and the others have to live with the decision. Love doesn't matter, it just makes it more emotional.
Next wave already are the pedophiles making the argument that they are genetically disposed to be attracted to kids... I don't care about polygamy or even incest. I do care about what the ramifications may be for this, though. In some areas, there are people pushing for 14 year-olds being able to vote. Now this is a potential slippery slope. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115
It's a lot different (I'm agreeing with you here, Mags). Viewing children as an "asset" is a bit troubling to me, maxiep. It's not like you're deciding on who gets the SUV and who gets the sedan. I'm of the belief that parents are best having a relationship with both of their parents, barring judiciary reasons for one parent not being allowed much, if any, access. An arbitrator has no business involving themselves in custody issues, since witnesses can't be called.
