We should remember there is actually good news in the following paragraphs:
After facing backlash for killing a bill that would have added domestic violence to the list of legal reasons a person can get a divorce in Mississippi, state Rep. Andy Gipson (R-Braxton) has backtracked.
The Mississippi lawmaker introduced an amendment on Monday that would allow physical, emotional, verbal, sexual and financial abuse as grounds for divorce.
Gipson had earlier argued that victims of domestic violence were already covered under the existing grounds.
There are currently 12 grounds for divorce in the state, including adultery, drunkenness and impotence. Victims of domestic violence can petition for divorce on grounds of "habitual cruel and inhuman treatment"—but experts say it is difficult for victims to prove the abuse was "habitual," and someone else has to corroborate their claims.
The amended bill clarifies that only one instance of abuse is needed, and that the victim can testify as the sole witness.
(Jeltsen↱)
The Mississippi lawmaker introduced an amendment on Monday that would allow physical, emotional, verbal, sexual and financial abuse as grounds for divorce.
Gipson had earlier argued that victims of domestic violence were already covered under the existing grounds.
There are currently 12 grounds for divorce in the state, including adultery, drunkenness and impotence. Victims of domestic violence can petition for divorce on grounds of "habitual cruel and inhuman treatment"—but experts say it is difficult for victims to prove the abuse was "habitual," and someone else has to corroborate their claims.
The amended bill clarifies that only one instance of abuse is needed, and that the victim can testify as the sole witness.
(Jeltsen↱)
And, yet, in a time such as this, with American cultural expression ... er ... ah ... with Americans at one another's throats like they've been ....
• Okay, so, paragraphs three through five in the article quote evoke a cringe. To the other, I must remember that some people need these points explained to them; Rep. Gipson, for instance. I might wonder if the difference is significant: If the proposition is to close a gap in domestic violence laws leaving victims at comparatively severely elevated risk, then ...
(a) ... oh, hey, yeah, we should probably close that up.
(b) ... we don't need to close the gap because it's already closed, or doesn't exist, or ... er ... ah ... something.
(b) ... we don't need to close the gap because it's already closed, or doesn't exist, or ... er ... ah ... something.
It's almost an unfair distraction, but, damn it, while I'm glad someone was able to explain the problem to Rep. Gipson, the fact that he needed it explained in the first place just seems problematic. Some part of me wants to know the threshold: When is he supposed to have known better?
And it seems like an important question. But it also seems like it can be an ugly distraction. Meanwhile, hooray, Mississippi is catching up ... to ... what, the last quarter of the previous century?
I think this is why Democrats like the word "progressive"; because then, any progress can sound good.
Everybody say thank you, Mississippi.
____________________
Notes:
Jeltsen, Melissa. "Mississippi Lawmaker Reconsiders Domestic Violence As Grounds For Divorce". 7 March 2017. The Huffington Post. 8 March 2017. http://huff.to/2mWMvFf