Apparently in the year 2005 the right to *divorce* is
in question. You didn't read that wrong -- *divorce.*

According to a litteral interpretation of the bible,
divorce is a sin. (Actully I think a man is allowed
to divorce, but not a woman.) So according to the
christian fascists like the president who would like
to make the U.S. a religious dictatorship, (and they
are very far along the road to getting their wish)
divorce should be restricted / illegalized. According
to a literal reading of the bible, also, problems like
sickness are caused by sin. In short- if you've got a
problem it's your fault, sinner!

The RCP statement The Battle For the Future Will Be
Fought From Here Forward says: "Those who compare Bush
to Hitler are right! But, don't be waiting for people
wearing little mustaches and marching the Nazi
goose-step to come to your town. This brand of fascism
is coming differently, and it's coming straight from
the white house."
(see rwor.org/future/web.htm )

Here's the article from the Chicago Tribune:

******

Court keeps wife tied to abuser
Seattle judge invalidates divorce after he learns
woman is pregnant

By Sam Howe Verhovek, Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles
Times. The Associated Press contributed to this report
Published January 10, 2005


SEATTLE -- The day she was granted a divorce from her
abusive husband, Shawnna Hughes said, was "the
happiest day of my life." But barely a week later, the
27-year-old medical assistant was back before a judge,
who rescinded the order after learning Hughes was
pregnant.

"Not only is it the policy of this court, it is the
policy of the state that you cannot dissolve a
marriage when one of the parties is pregnant,"
Superior Court Judge Paul Bastine told Hughes on Nov.
4.

Hughes says her husband is not the father and that he
was in prison when she became pregnant.

The ruling blocking her divorce has provoked outrage
among women's rights groups and provided ample fodder
for local talk-radio hosts and newspaper columnists.

Experts said there was no blanket prohibition in the
laws of this or any other state against pregnant women
getting divorced; several Seattle-area family law
practitioners said they had obtained divorces for
pregnant clients.

The law states that any Washington resident who files
for a no-fault divorce may get one. Hughes' husband
did not respond to her petition, and a divorce was
granted. But Bastine said the divorce was invalid
because Hughes learned she was pregnant after the
papers were served, so her husband was not aware of
all the facts.

Hughes is appealing Bastine's decision.

The judge said in a telephone interview that the case
involved a thicket of other legal issues--especially
because she was receiving public-aid benefits, and the
state had an interest in determining paternity.

The state of Washington objected to the divorce
because it might leave the state unable to identify a
father and pursue him for repayment of welfare money
used to support the child. Bastine agreed to revoke
the divorce until paternity is scientifically
established after the child's birth, expected in
mid-March.

Reasoning questioned

Several legal scholars questioned his reasoning,
saying the law provides for paternity issues to be
settled separately from a divorce. In Washington, a
child born as many as 300 days after a divorce is
legally presumed to have been fathered by the
ex-husband unless a paternity test proves otherwise.
Hughes said she and the man with whom she became
pregnant planned to have such a test after the birth.

"I cannot think of any policy that would require this
woman to stay married to a person who was in prison
for abusing her," said Carol Bruch, a law professor at
the University of California, Davis.

For the moment, Hughes, who lives in Spokane, remains
married to her abuser--a situation she calls
psychologically devastating. She said her 6-year union
with Carlos Hughes was "more like a prison than a
marriage."

When she got pregnant in June, Hughes said, her
estranged husband was serving time for domestic
assault. She said she hasn't had contact with Carlos
Hughes, who recently was transferred to a jail in
Montana to await trial on federal drug charges, for
two years.

But, she said, her husband called her grandmother from
jail and said he was taking the pregnancy as "a sign
from God" that the couple should be together. "It made
my stomach turn," Shawnna Hughes said.

Although there is a restraining order preventing
Carlos Hughes from initiating any contact, Shawnna
Hughes said she was terrified by the prospect of him
coming back.

She has custody of their two boys, ages 5 and 3.

ACLU takes up case

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Northwest
Women's Law Center have joined in Shawnna Hughes'
appeal. If the ruling is upheld, they say, it not only
amounts to discrimination but also could establish a
perverse incentive for an abusive husband to get his
wife pregnant and force her to stay married. It also
could prompt some women to terminate their pregnancies
to obtain a divorce.

Bastine also told Shawnna Hughes that she forced a
prolongation of her marriage on herself with the
"intentional act" of getting pregnant.

"You have created the situation by your own actions
that delay your opportunity to dissolve your
marriage," he said in the Nov. 4 hearing.

Getting pregnant with a friend from high school was
unintentional, Hughes said, the result of failed birth
control.

Regardless, said her lawyer, Terri Sloyer, the
standard right to obtain a divorce after the 90-day
waiting period should not be affected by a pregnancy.

"What are we telling women here?" she said. "We're not
living in 15th Century England."

Carlos Hughes did not respond to requests for comment
at the detention center in Montana. A reporter for the
Stranger, a weekly newspaper in Seattle that first
wrote about the case, met with Hughes last month. But
he declined to discuss the controversy, saying: "I
want to talk to Shawnna first."