Her.meneutics: The No-Fault-Divorce Nation

back to Christianity Today

RSS Feed | Help

e-mail to a friend

twitter updates

Follow Her.meneutics on Twitter

What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

interests

books and media

church life

justice and politics

relationships and family

sexuality and health

spirituality

theology

women of note

writers

More ...

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

« How the Movie Partly Redeems 'Eat Pray Love' | Main | A Theology of Jiggly Thighs »

August 17, 2010

The No-Fault-Divorce Nation

As New York becomes the last state to legalize no-fault divorce, will Americans see a new chapter in our national marriage crisis?

Alicia Cohn

No-fault divorce is now legal in every state, making filing for divorce in America — whether both parties agree or not — simply a matter of getting the proper paperwork.

New York just became the last state to adopt the legislation, passing a bill in early July that was signed into law this week by Governor David Paterson.

According to New York Law Journal, the law lets mutually consenting couples divorce “within six months of stating under oath their unions are ‘irretrievably’ broken.” Proponents say such laws free couples from needing to prove that one spouse caused the divorce by adultery or abuse. But to suggest ugly divorce battles are a thing of the past would deny the devastation of divorce itself. There are plenty of reasons why making it easier to get a divorce is a bad idea. Opposition to the legislation has created unlikely allies out of the Roman Catholic Church, the New York chapter of the feminist group National Organization for Women (NOW), and the nonprofit Marriage Savers, founded by evangelical Mike McManus.

Marcia Pappas, president of New York’s NOW, echoed the Catholic concern for the potential economic inequality for women caused by sanctioning “divorce on demand”:

No-fault takes away any bargaining leverage the non-moneyed spouse has. Currently she can say, “If you want a divorce I’ll agree, but you have to work out a fair agreement.”

Robin Fretwell Wilson, an alumni professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, also noted that no-fault laws erroneously overlook the fact that sometimes, one spouse is at fault:

By bypassing mutual agreement, S3890 would treat nearly all divorces alike. Under current New York law, fault matters in property distribution and alimony only in rare instances, when “so egregious” as to be “a blatant disregard” of the marriage. Beating one’s wife with a barbell until she is unrecognizable would count, but verbally abusing and striking one’s wife and child while intoxicated would not, even if the abuse required a physician’s care. Not all reasons for divorcing are equal. Often someone is at fault and that should matter if the law is to do justice.

In defense of no-fault divorce, Bonnie Erbe argued in U.S. News & World Report:

The longer we mollycoddle women, the less well women are going to fare economically. Women must realize that marriage is an economic partnership as well as a romantic one, and if women want to give up working to stay home to raise children, they are also giving up their financial futures as well.

Carrie Lukas countered Erbe at National Review Online:

But it’s because marriage is an “economic partnership” that women shouldn’t be “giving up their financial futures” when they stay home with young children. That legal partnership is supposed to make women (or men) feel safe in the decision to sacrifice their personal earnings for the good of the family unit. Enforcing a contract isn’t “mollycoddling” women; it’s the way the legal system is supposed to work.

McManus of Marriage Savers warned about the fiscal price tag of the bill by documenting the rise from 639,000 divorces in 1969 — the year of the first no-fault law, instated in California — to more than a million by 1975. “It is a grave mistake certain to increase the divorce rate by up to 50 percent, and boost the state budget deficit by hundreds of millions annually,” he said.

McManus advocates reforming divorce laws on a state-by-state basis, recommending that states lengthen mandatory separation periods prior to granting divorce and replace no-fault divorce (which he calls “unilateral divorce”) with mutual consent divorce in cases involving children. His goal is reconciliation between spouses whenever possible.

Marriage Savers is one of several groups expressing a surge of concern for the state of marriage in the U.S. Marriage Savers works through “Community Marriage Policies” that establish standards requiring premarital counseling and ongoing marriage-enrichment courses, including conflict resolution and step-family support. According to the Maryland-based nonprofit, once a community gets a significant number of people to sign this type of agreement, the divorce rate drops.

The Manhattan Declaration, signed by prominent members of the Christian community last year, emphasized the importance of churches getting proactive about protecting marriage. A 2005 Ellison Research study of 872 Protestant churches showed that only 28 percent of the churches offered a marriage enrichment course. Perhaps indicating modest improvement, a 2008 study of 2,500 U.S. church congregations (including Protestant, evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox, and “world religions”) released by Faith Communities Today indicated that 60 percent of churches offer either parenting or marriage enrichment programs (the Ellison survey showed 20 percent offered a parenting or child development course).

Groups like Marriage Savers, Let’s Strengthen Marriage, and Smart Marriages believe that marriage is in crisis, due in part to devaluing the institution through measures such as no-fault divorce. Many of these organizations take a preventative approach by encouraging community — especially church-based community — support and education. In these ways, they hope the church can lead the way to making divorce and other marriage-related problems less common.

The objective of churches becoming the benchmark for stable, healthy marriages seems to me something worth striving for.

Comments

I find this post very informative.
I will pass this along to some of my online friends,
as I find it will relate to them as well.
Thank You for the interesting information.

First and foremost, divorce is clearly displeasing to God. That is enough reason to have better divorce policies in our nation.

As a young Christian woman who is currently trying to get out of a marriage in the state of New York, I celebrate this new bill and am relieved of its passing. While divorce is a highly charged topic in the conservative Christian arena (among others) many people fail to realize that the lack of a no-fault ruling actually reinforces the patriarchal barriers for women to overcome in the instances of unhealthy marriages. Let us not forget that 2/3rds of divorces are initiated by women.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=713110
Without a no-fault ruling, women (and men) are forced to embellish acts against them or downright lie just to be able to leave a marriage. Your blog post also fails to take into account an increase in women as the "breadwinners" of the household and greater numbers of stay at home dads. The economic implications of marriage in this day in age are far from what they were 50 years ago.

The crumbling of a marriage is intensely complicated and often derived from years of unhealthy behaviors from both parties. For this reason, it is highly unlikely that the majority of divorces can be blamed on one instance of infidelity or abuse. To think that the justification of divorce can easily fit into 1 of 4 (in the case of NY) simple reasons is out of touch and ignorant to the realities of the institution.

Another argument against no-fault divorce previously stated was one of economic proportions. I find it disheartening that anyone would suggest the limitation of divorce for the shear purpose of saving tax dollars when so many of those divorces were most likely allowing people in emotionally toxic situations a chance at a better life. In fact, it saddens me to think of the masses of women throughout the ages subjected to abuse, adultery, and neglect up against the cultural constraints of society without the ability to leave their spouses.

For all those people in healthy stable marriages, I applaud you and live with hope that I will eventually participate in a marriage of that kind. However, leaving my husband was the best decision I've ever made even though he didn't beat me or cheat on me and I am thankful that I don't have to live through 50 more years of that pain and depression. Some may have the impression that divorce is displeasing to God but so are MANY other things that Christians participate in day in and day out. Only He knows the cross that each of us bear each day so let us not forget Matthew 7:5. We all are dealing with areas to become better followers of Jesus so I encourage you to refrain from judging one another on issues until we take the log out of our own eye.

I particularly loved the pictures in this article - get a divorce for $399 right below an Egg McMuffin ad, and "Get a Divorce Do-It-Yourself Kit". Pretty much says it all.

I believe that many couples, even Christian couples, enter the covenant of marriage, with the possibility of divorce as an option, should the marriage not meet their expectations.

We might consider more carefully who we marry and the importance of God being the third person in our marriage, if divorce had no part, even unconsciously, in the decision.

I am thankful that God honors His covenants with His people, even when we aren't very good ar honoring the covenants that we make!

The church should be working on divorce prevention. I applaud these groups who are promoting this.

Still, I see many church couples break up and it seems as though there were no warning signs. Really, though, I just didn't SEE the signs because I wasn't truly involved in their lives. Or perhaps I saw the signs, but I felt it was "none of my business" and "I don't want to get involved!"

Getting personally involved in divorce prevention & marital reconciliation is difficult. It's messy. It's out of our comfort zones. I'm not just talking about teaching a seminar on "how to have a good marriage"; I'm talking about confrontation, accountability, the willingness to ask difficult questions and listen to even more difficult answers.

I think if we did that, we'd have a better idea of the kinds of things motivating "no fault" divorces. We might have a better idea of what cross each of us has to bear and be able to extend love, encouragemenet & support to those in difficult marriages. After all, we may need that same support some day.

No-fault divorce is far more damaging to the institution of marriage than is same sex marriage. It's time the church realized this and fought back against "no-fault divorce."

Unfortunately, when you are not the one who wants a divorce (as I was when my philandering husband fell in love with ONE of the women he'd been chasing), you have no choice in what happens. This happened to me, in Indiana, in 1979. There I was, with no career, a stay-at-home mom to a 2 year old, a 4 year old and a 6 year old.

Now, when members of my church who don't have a clue about no-fault look down on me because I'm in a remarried situation (celebrating 30 years next year!), I give them a little "education" on no-fault and how it changed my life and my children's lives.

But, truth be told, I am definitely better off now than I would have been if I had stayed married to the guy. And the woman he married, lives in fear he will do the same thing to her that he did to me.

Be careful what you ask for!

Kate, why on earth would you NOT want to divorce that guy?!

There are also issues with the new law regarding the details on maintenance (alimony and child support). Many judges find the maintenance provisions vague and unworkable. A committee has been appointed to research maintenance standards in New York, though a report is not due until late next year. This may cause issues for judges and divorcees.

Henry VIII had six wives. Maybe if he'd been granted an annulment or divorce, most of those women might have been spared some grief (two their heads).

The Church of England would still have come about, as Henry's lack of an heir and wanting a divorce were only partial cause of the separation from the Romans. Politics, maybe even culture, is said to have had a stronger influence than his being denyed an annulment.

The Reformation had already happened in Germany and other parts of Europe. Interesting that while Henry went through six wives but still had no son to inherit the throne, his contemporary "disgrunt" Martin Luther supposedly produced six children with one woman. (This news could have added to Henry VIII's frustrations.)

While God "hates divorce," there may be instances when it is the most merciful solution to serious discord. While some seek divorce for very weak and selfish reasons, it is a fact that people suffer in truly unhappy marriages.

Henry VIII, in his desperation, is reported to have concocted all kinds of stories about some of his relationships. No-fault, when mutually agreed upon, may save people from the sin of "bearing false witness," or save the one being discarded from further embarrassment and hardship.

No children's needs should be abandoned. Wives left just because they lose their youthful beauty or some other lame claim should not be left to fend for themselves financially. But forcing people to stay together isn't right either.

No-fault has both positive and negative sides to it.

Responsibilities and obligation can be enforced under the secular law, but heart-felt love and the inner sense of freedom it produces cannot.

Sometimes love can be revived if people wait long enough, other situations where people are forced to stay together could have terrible outcomes.

There is no easy answer that fits all couples. It is ok to assert that "God hates divorce," because a failed mrriage is a sad thing. But we must be realistic, as people make mistakes.

Henry VIII had six wives. Maybe if he'd been granted an annulment or divorce, most of those women might have been spared some grief (two their heads).

No-fault has both positive and negative sides to it.

Responsibilities and obligation can be enforced under the secular law, but heart-felt love and the inner sense of freedom it produces cannot.

Sometimes love can be revived if people wait long enough, other situations where people are forced to stay together could have terrible outcomes.

There is no easy answer that fits all couples. It is ok to assert that "God hates divorce," because a failed mrriage is a sad thing. But we must be realistic, as people make mistakes.

Posted By: Charmaine | August 24, 2010 11:19 AM

P.S. I have experienced divorce, and do NOT recommend any "do-it-yourself" quickies just because they are less expensive. (I had agreed to that route to avoid further anguish.) I paid a higher price by not having an attorney represent me.

Correction to the post: Henry VIII did have a legitimate male heir, and daughters, but only after much controversial effort.

Henry VIII had six wives. Maybe if he'd been granted an annulment or divorce, most of those women might have been spared some grief (two their heads).

The Reformation had already happened in Germany and other parts of Europe. Interesting that while Henry went through a few wives before having a son to inherit the throne, his contemporary "disgrunt" Martin Luther supposedly produced six children with one woman. (This news could have added to Henry VIII's frustrations.)

Henry VIII, in his desperation, is reported to have concocted all kinds of stories about some of his relationships. No-fault, when mutually agreed upon, may save people from the sin of "bearing false witness," or safeguard the one being discarded from further humiliation and hardship.

No-fault has both positive and negative sides to it.

Responsibilities and obligation can be enforced under the secular law, but heart-felt love and the inner sense of freedom it produces cannot.

Sometimes love can be revived if people wait long enough, other situations where people are forced to stay together could have terrible outcomes.

There is no easy answer that fits all couples. It is ok to assert that "God hates divorce," because a failed marriage is a sad thing. But we must be realistic, as people make mistakes.

Note: Some of the HTML tags show up in preview, but don't come through in final post.

Such as .

Divorce is too widely used as a solution to problems, rather then a last resort! Many couples face issues within their relation ship and immediately consider divorce. If the couple works at the marriage, then divorce wouldn;t be necessary at all...

Unwillingness of living together whether there is a fault of a partner or not.You can't force a person to live with he/she doesn't wants so.Under a no-fault divorce system, divorce requires no allegation or proof of fault of either party.This divorce system some how degrade the values of the institute of marriage But as a lawyer I suggest it is better to have Divorce instead of single side partnership.

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

The No-Fault-Divorce Nation

Comments

recent posts

Archives