You Can't Ban No-Fault Divorce

[marmar]

from AlterNet's PEEK:



You Can't Ban No-Fault Divorce

Posted by Amanda Marcotte, Pandagon at 4:35 AM on April 16, 2008.

The Christian right pursues a pipe dream of revoking a right Americans have grown accustomed to.



Kathryn Joyce has a great piece up about the continuing agitating of anti-divorce nuts, who are trying to perform the social equivalent of putting toothpaste back into the tube. What's really great about this dude from Marriage Savers, though, is that he openly argues that marriage should be a legal trap.

Basing its implied equation of liberal divorce laws with unjust war, McManus justifies the term “Unilateral Divorce” because “in four out of five cases, one spouse did not want the divorce, but had no choice.” In a press release announcing the new Reform Divorce website, McManus argued that one spouse’s freedom to divorce the other without permission was the reason behind America’s high divorce rate.

Unfortunately for them, these are reforms that will only pass Republican muster if you only reverse a woman's right to sue for divorce. After all, the John McCains and Newt Gingriches of the world would have been fucked if their first wives (or second) were able to prevent them from trading them in for younger models. But I suspect that these Marriage Savers would be perfectly happy to accept a compromise that allowed men to sue for divorce and not women. Though I suppose even an equal divorce law that prevented men from divorcing as well as women would fuck women over more than men, because men that aren't politicians would do what they always did before, and just leave without bothering with the divorce. Women are the ones who more often need the protections of divorce.

In case there's any doubt that this is more about women's freedom than men's (though, to be fair, the anti-divorce nuts also get off on thinking about men being trapped in unhappy marriages as a sacrifice to the patriarchy), check out this article.

Divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing cost U.S. taxpayers more than $112 billion a year, according to a study commissioned by four groups advocating more government action to bolster marriages.

Of course, the groups are the sort that should immediately raise suspicions---a bunch of wingnut organizations that are too busy thumping the Bible to crack it open and realize that it's about more things than the importance of all people being wedged into very narrow gender roles. They defined costs incurred by single "parents" (read: unmarried mothers) very, very broadly, making the findings pretty much guaranteed as illegitimate.

Scafidi's calculations were based on the assumption that households headed by a single female have relatively high poverty rates, leading to higher spending on welfare, health care, criminal justice and education for those raised in the disadvantaged homes.

The idea that poverty is caused by single motherhood more than the other way around has no real evidence for it, and the reverse does have some evidence. So we can dismiss the study right out of hand. But I can't help but point out how weird it is that they included education. Are they saying that a bunch of broke single moms would somehow be able to pull their kids from public school and put them in private school if they married, most likely to men that are in the same socioeconomic class? Skeezy, but I'm not surprised to see that kind of statistics-bending. These folks are so committed to proving that men are the sole source of everything---life, morality, civilization itself---and that women can't provide any of these things, that they're not going to be stopped by something minor like intellectual honesty. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/82504/

[Richard Steele]

1. K&R

[mac2]

2. Baptist and Catholic elite

get what they want and ignore the divorce laws. Why burden society with their pious stuff? Are we going back to the Dark Ages?

One spouce not wanting the divorce is the one who has the most to lose both fincially and with the family disapproval.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. If they ban no-fault divorce, the next thing they'll do is to recriminalize adultery and

bring back to the Scarlet "A".

[marmar]

5. "recriminalize adultery"

I'm sure that's next on their agenda.

[jmowreader]

6. Which will lead to a new trend: "Mutual Adultery"

As it stands now, if a couple decides they don't love each other anymore it's not all that hard to get divorced and move on. This is bad for the Religious Right, so expect the No-Fault Divorce to disappear if the talibornagain gets its way.

However, Ten Commandments sins like adultery will still be grounds for divorce, which will lead to creative couples committing Mutual Adultery. This works very simply. It requires a divorcing couple, two mutual friends and two rolls of film. The participants meet in a hotel room. The husband commits a thread-locking act with his friend while his wife stands outside the window and takes pictures of it; they switch places and the wife commits a TLA with her friend while the husband photographs it. (It's gotta be film; digital images are too easily manipulated to serve as evidence.) A quick trip to the judge with pictures of what that dirty so-and-so did with my best friend, and the marriage is quickly and simply dissolved. They'll get the film developed by going to a small place that has their equipment out of the public eye and claiming they need the pictures to "prove" marital infidelity.

There are ways around anything if you work hard enough at it.

[Seeking Serenity]

4. There's no such thing as "no-fault" divorce in Arkansas.

According to DH the Republican and lawyer, you still have to prove grounds for a divorce here, be it adultery or "habitual drunkeness" (I love that one), etc. We don't have "irreconcilable differences" here. Even the catch-all "general indignities" still require some course of behavior by one of the parties (most commonly an 18-month separation). If party just "falls out of love," he can't just get a divorce immediately.

[mac2]

16. My sister-in-law never told her kids why she got a divorce.

We knew but they did not. She hid the truth because she thought she failed? She became a religious fanatic and didn't keep herself up. She kept having kids when her husband did not have the funds to support a big family. She joined a church group who believed in large families. Of-course she didn't support them or have a job since so many kids was a lot of work. DA!

[yardwork]

7. I hope that the extreme right keeps pushing this - it will lose them a lot of support.

For a long time the extreme right has gotten support for their bigoted positions because they target smaller demographic groups, like gay people. If they keep this up, they'll have everybody in the U.S. mad at them. Good.

[smiley_glad_hands]

8. I hope mcsame takes up the cause.

Seems he's been trying to moderate himself lately though.

[Seeking Serenity]

9. Divorce laws are state matters, not federal ones.

I can't imagine why McCain would take up this.

[smiley_glad_hands]

10. You assume that msame and repugs are reasonable people.

Terry Shiavo comes to mind.

[mac2]

13. "Family values platform" worked for Bush (drunk, liar) so

why not McCain (divorced himself)? Forget about the argument that they are hypocrites.

[KharmaTrain]

11. The Problem Aren't Easy Divorces...It's Easy Marriages

These days I feel like the Lone Ranger...most of my friends have been through divorces (many several times) while, by some strange quirk of fate, my 30 plus relationship endures. After being an eyewitness to too many break-ups, the one thing I hear is how many regretted getting married when they did...marrying too young or thinking with the wrong head or expecting a second "mom". There's a need and rush to get married...and there's still a social stigma that says one's life isn't complete unless they have the big wedding or get married. IMHO, the pressures of society push a lot of people to get married a lot sooner than they should, or rush into a relationship to fulfill that desire...then after the fire turns to ashes and people and times change, there's little to find in common, and then the pressure to split replaces the one to get married. It can be a yo-yo for some...and the lawyers love it.

We joke here that couples should be required to live together...my wife and I did so for three years before we became joint-filers....learn about what the person is like at 8am as opposed to 8pm and see if you're compatible. Make better and happier couples and divorces will become less of a problem. Let ALL who want to marry to do so, but our culture needs to take a closer look at how marriage is pushed as some kind of need.

[mac2]

12. Marriage is not a good thing if they are argue all the time, beat

the wife or kids, molest them, drunk, drugs, etc. Bad economics causes more upheaval in marriages than in prosperous times. If you want healthy marriages and kids do no war and think about jobs, health care, education, etc.

[KharmaTrain]

18. My Definition Of Cheating...

That is one of the most common complaints...and always viewed in a sexual way. I always ask if that was all that was withheld? How about communications? Emotional support? Financial? Withholding those are just as important and more vital to a successful relationship. Drugs, alcohol, abuse appear to be a symptom of this disconnect as well. I've long felt the most important aspect in my relationship was that we were and still are best friends...we can share things with each other without hestiation; knowing we've always been on each other's side.

Kids are a whole other can of worms...many who sadly get caught up as the fire turns to ashes, times get tough and emotions get frayed. The pressures of career, money and divorce have created a latch-key generation that see many conflicting messages in their lives. It was difficult, but my wife and I always made sure there was always a parent at home and we were always accessible to our children...and gratefully they've grown into fine young adults. But then that's a proud dad typing...

Cheers...

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

20. I would not tie it to physical age

sometimes wisdom and maturity transcends that... but on the whole 'live with them front'

--

On average, marriage preceded by cohabitation is 46% more likely to end in divorce. (Popenoe and Whitehead, "Should We Live Together?" 2002, p. 4, citing 1992 study by Alfred DeMaris & K. Vaninadha Rao, "Premarital Cohabitation & Subsequent Marital Stability in the U.S.: A Reassessment," Journal of Marriage and the Family 54)

--

[KharmaTrain]

21. Age Of The Relationship

I'm refering to the time a couple spends together. The old adage of you never really know another person. I could apply what I said to a 35 year old with a "ticking clock" (the family/children before its too late) as well. I have noticed, though, that the older one gets, the needs of companionship and relationships do change...and how hard it can be for some who are set in their way to adjust to sharing their life. As you state, it's all based on wisdom and maturity.

I'm definitely not advocating cohabitation, but I do feel the years my wife and I spent together before we got married set the foundation for what we share today and that we could learn about each other without a lot of the pressures that marriage presents.

Cheers...

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

22. Thanks for the thoughtful reply

I just know 22yo's who knew each other a couple of years and never 'lived together' who do a better job, at times, than my wife and I who knew each other nearly a decade when we tied the knot (2 dating and 8 as friends) and who had made the mistake of co-habitating (though it was years before marriage)

Regards..

[treestar]

24. Most lawyers hate it, and get out of it as soon as possible

The most time consuming area of law ever. Them most client crises possible.

One of my colleagues got a call from a client on Christmas Day.

It's difficult to reason with people who are going through a divorce about the law. They don't care what the law is. Yet that's what the lawyer has to work with.

[Scout]

25. We should make it much more difficult to marry than it is now...

that would lower the divorce rate.

[nichomachus]

14. Their statistics are lies

I worked in a courthouse and dealt with incoming divorce cases. I often saw both parties in the case, but I dealt with all the paperwork.

I saw very few cases where only one party wanted the divorce -- nowhere near four out of five -- not even close.

There were some cases where one party didn't want to divide property and fought the divorce. There were cases where one party wasn't happy about it, but they almost always realized the marriage was over. And, there were come cases, although very very few, where one party desperately wanted to keep things together.

There was one case where the husband pulled every string he could to keep the marriage together, but it turned out there was a lot of money involved and he was stalling for time in order to try to hide it.

Back before no-fault divorce, at least in Massachusetts, where I lived at the time, the only grounds for divorce was adultery. So, if two people wanted the divorce, one of them would have to actually commit adultery and allow himself to be "caught" by a private investigator hired for that purpose -- and photographed. That was very demeaning. It meant finding as prostitute and going to a sleazy motel, being photographed with the prostitute, and having the pictures entered into evidence. The other way was to go to court and perjure yourself, admitting to adultery you didn't commit.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

15. I dont know how I feel about no fault divorce

on one hand there are times when its clearly called for otoh sometimes people who dont deserve it get screwed over..

Sometimes on partner decides to 'trade up' when their spouse may be supportive, nurturing, loving, faithful, and kid yet may lack in looks, health, age, or money. Sometime rather than work out problems people decide its easier to just leave.. Personally in such situations I dont think it should be made easy.

I knew a young could who got divorced after only two years of marriage and when they had a 6-9 month old kid. The wife had not been showing any affection to the husband after the birth. Co-sleeping with the kid while having him sleep in another room. The husband got pissed had an affair and announced he was leaving her. He never up to that point proposed counseling, therapy or any other means to fix the problem he just decided to move on...

And with little more than a signature he did just that. Was he right to feel alienated? yes she clearly decided he did not exist and emotionally neglected him but he did nothing to fix the situation.

When he told her he was leaving she pleaded with him for forgiveness, she offered to stop the co-sleeping, she acknowledged she had neglected with him and said she wanted to work it out still he left and had little difficulty doing it.

[mac2]

17. He wanted out of his responsibility.

It's easy to start a new life and leave the kid behind.

I have a female friend who did not want kids. She had a degree, career and made great money. He husband wanted kids. They had three boys. He was gone a lot and she had the child raising responsibilities. They parted because they were bored with each other. She has the kids and he got a new wife. I had to wonder why so many if none were wanted in the beginning? The kids suffer the most or the wife left behind. Single mothers should get a big tax break since they need help and child care.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

19. Perhaps

I was not too close to the inside of what happened but at the time his kid was 6 months and my kid was about a year we were both new fathers and I could not believe he would leave that.. I can understand that a kid cant save a marriage but usually at the least I would suspect they might prolong it.

I suspect over the long term the kids suffer far more an adult woman can, in time, see the truth that the guy is a tool and its all about him being a tool. The kids will always think its somehow their fault.

I think Single moms do get some breaks (the dont pay taxes on child support for instance) still I dont know how they do it..

[Manifestor_of_Light]

23. I was a single mom who had to pay child support to the father.

In Texas, we have community property. That means women are equal in the eyes of the law, because of the Spanish law influence.

My ex pushed me to the point that I filed for divorce so he wouldn't look like the bad guy.

He withheld sex, affection, money, approval, emotional support, conversation, and everything he could. He thought marriage was living in a boardinghouse and occasionally screwing the landlady.

He had put down a deposit check for an apt in July, and I had a physical collapse with exhaustion and pneumonia at the end of August and filed for divorce then.

At his deposition, he could not explain how that deposit check on an apartment magically appeared in his records. :banghead:

Pathological liars are dangerous.

[Seeking Serenity]

26. By the time it reaches the filing stage, it's probably too late

When he told her he was leaving she pleaded with him for forgiveness, she offered to stop the co-sleeping, she acknowledged she had neglected with him and said she wanted to work it out still he left and had little difficulty doing it.

By the time it reaches the declaration of wanting a divorce stage, it's probably too late. She should have picked up on the signs she was neglecting him long before that.

(edited to add omitted word)