No-fault divorce laws proved to be major wedges into integrating injustice into the institution of marriage, which was also redefined in the name of revolutionizing relationships. What are the issues involved?
- What is the basic objective in reversing 'no-fault' divorce?
- Why is this a matter pertaining to justice?
- How does covenant marriage relate to 'no-fault' divorce reform?
- How has moving away from traditional divorce laws, where sufficient evidence of fault had to be found before divorce was considered, impacted the institution of marriage?
- What is the biggest detriment to marriage cause by 'no-fault' divorce?
- Does 'no-fault' divorce really have that severe of an impact upon marriage--that it becomes 'the death of marriage?'
- How has this set us on a course to redefine marriage in its entirety?
- Is 'no-fault' divorce really another way of saying 'no-responsibility' divorce?
- What are other disadvantages of 'no-fault' divorce
Q. What is the basic objective in reversing no-fault divorce?
A. Former juvenile court judge Randal Hekman commented on a Focus on the Family broadcast that "one of the functions of courts ought to be justice. 'No-fault' divorce laws do not produce justice for the couples--the parties that are involved."1
Q. Why is this a matter pertaining to justice?
A. Michigan governor John Engler, a broadcast guest in a 1996 program, "A Visit With Governor John Engler," entered into the following exchange with Dr. James Dobson on the need for reform:
Governor John Engler: "It is a matter of justice that it takes two people to decide that we will get married, when somebody says I want to end the marriage, should that be, now, just a unilateral decision, and it's an effort to really, in effect, square up the table so that everybody sits there. And guess who gets focused on in that situation? Our children."
Dr. Dobson: "But it's been a disaster, and it has just created so many problems for families, and for children where, you know, it's more simple to get out of a marriage contract than it is the most simple business contract, so we've got to address that."
Gov. Engler: "Well, I think there's great interest across the country, because there's a recognition that one of the things that's hurt America, and it shows up in so many different statistics, I mean, in some very serious ones concerning abuse and neglect of children. And the basis of where this is going is to try to say, 'Look, there's got to be more of a consensual process here. There's got to be a process where there's sort of equal bargaining power, if you will, and there's got to be a process where the child, the children, come first.' It's not just the need of a party who says, 'I want out of my marriage,' and just simply walks away."
Dr. Dobson: "The New York Times had an article recently. It quoted a 47-year-old woman from Detroit who said, 'Instead of starting a career for myself, I helped my husband get his business started. I had four children. I made the beds. I cooked the meals. I cleaned the house. I kept my marriage vows. Now I find myself divorced in mid-life with no career. My husband makes $100,000 a year, and we're struggling to get by on a quarter of that.' Does that sound like a fair system?"
Gov. Engler: "It's not a fair program. It's not a fair system, or a fair result at all."2
Q. How does covenant marriage relate to no-fault divorce reform?
A. One central thrust of pre-emptive reform of divorce laws is the promotion of covenant marriage as part of the broader marriage recovery movement. According to a February 1, 2004 article in The Washington Times:
...one divorce reform aimed at ending no-fault divorce - covenant marriage - seems to be accomplishing its goal of discouraging divorce, according to new data. 'The divorce rate among covenant couples is slightly less than half that of the standard couples,' said Stephen L. Nock, who has been studying covenant marriage for the past five years. Covenant marriage is a harder-to-get-into, harder-to-end form of marriage that couples can sign up for. As family law professor Katherine Spaht, a supporter of the law, has described it: Covenant marriage is 'the first time in over 200 years in any Western country that divorce law has gone in the other direction - that divorce has become more difficult, rather than easier.' Covenant marriage 'doesn't change existing marriage laws, but allows couples the choice of a marriage with stronger protections,' said Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, who, as a Louisiana lawmaker, crafted that state's 1997 covenant-marriage law.3
To obtain a covenant-marriage license, couples must have premarital counseling and agree that they will seek marriage counseling should problems arise. Covenant couples can divorce, but it takes longer [at least two years, instead of six months] and divorces are granted only if there's been abuse, adultery, imprisonment, abandonment or two years' separation.
Q. How has moving away from traditional divorce laws, where sufficient evidence of fault had to be found before a divorce was considered, impacted the institution of marriage?
A. Focus on the Family marriage analyst Glenn Stanton says we must reform but not necessarily repeal our nation’s no-fault divorce laws, which would send us back to the old divorces laws requiring proof of fault. “We could extend the waiting period for divorce during periods of legal separation, which are both linked to mandatory joint counseling (with counselors of the parties’ own choosing),” says Stanton.4
Stanton also believes that additional options include “informed consent education on the impact of divorce” plus “required parenting plans as to how the children will be cared for after the breakup” would both “go far in protecting children and adults in danger while requiring people to assess the option of divorce more soberly.”5
Q. What is the biggest detriment to marriage caused by no-fault divorce?
A. If a marriage can be broken at the whim of either party, a couple doesn’t really have anything to start with. It was this realization which prompted the social discussion that no-fault divorce has resulted in the death of marriage.
The Focus on the Family fact sheet, "No-Fault Divorce," notes that "no-fault divorce law, in the legal sense, murdered marriage. Under these laws, marriage is dead because it is an unenforceable contract."6
In essence, no-fault divorce has nullified the sacredness of marriage in the eyes of the law. A man and woman can abandon their family easier than they can abrogate almost any other agreement--for example, a transaction acquiring a refrigerator--that bears their signature.
Q. Does no-fault divorce really have that severe of an impact upon marriage—that it becomes ‘the death of marriage?’
A. Glenn Stanton, in his book, WHY MARRIAGE MATTERS, addressed the topic of the need to strengthen marriage starting with reforming (though not necessarily repealing) our nation’s no-fault laws:
Before the work to strengthen marriage can really begin in any substantive sense, we must repair the legal foundation of marriage. No-fault divorce laws, which exist in nearly all of the fifty states, effectively abolish marriage in any legal or social sense. When a spouse can leave any marriage, at any time, for any reason—or no reason at all—the only thing holding marriage together is the simultaneous commitment of two individuals to the marriage. While this personal commitment is important, we also need not just societal, but legal, expectation. We no longer have that. If one partner wavers at all in this commitment, current laws say the marriage contract can be abolished more easily and quickly than a business contract with the people who care for your lawn! The law is a teacher. Currently, it is teaching us that marriage only matters if two people simultaneously want it to matter. If one party loses faith temporarily, the marriage can end. The law must teach that marriage matters, period.7
Q. How has this set us on a course to redefine marriage in its entirety?
A. Glenn Stanton answers this in his article, "How Ronald Reagan Gave Us Same-Sex Marriage"
Q. Is ‘no-fault’ divorce really another way of saying ‘no-responsibility’ divorce?
A. Steve Farrar tells a story on a Focus on the Family broadcast about his wife's auto accident:
About a year ago, my wife called me. I picked up the phone, and as soon as I heard her voice, I knew something was wrong, and she said, 'Steve, I've had an accident.' I had two questions. Question No. 1 was--you know what it was--'Are you all right?' She assured me she was fine...Gentlemen, what was my second question ['Whose fault?' the audience answered]. Yeah, my second question was, 'Mary, whose fault was it?' And you what she told me. She said, 'Steve, I'm driving down LBJ in North Dallas on the freeway about 55. This guy's next to me and all of a sudden, just all of a sudden, these two cars metaphysically, on their own, decided to come together of their own volition. It was nobody's fault, Steve.'"8
Just as justice is not evident under presuming no responsibility within auto accidents, severing justice from divorce cases likewise leaves victims without legal recourse, and more importantly, without economic protection. Professor Allen Parkman from the University of New Mexico reports in his book, NO FAULT DIVORCE: WHAT WENT WRONG? that “No-fault divorce has resulted in a decline in the welfare of divorced women and the children of divorced parents.”9
Q. What are other disadvantages of no-fault divorce?
A. The Focus on the Family "No-Fault Divorce" fact sheet provides both its disadvantages as well as what constituted the four original intentions as presented by its reformers. The fact sheet's conclusion is that "time and the data that has come forth from this experiment with the American family judge this divorce revolution as an absolute failure. Not only did it not meet its intended goals, it produced the polar opposite."10
It did not lower the divorce rate as intended; it did not foster greater equality between men and women; it did not improve the family lives for most adults and children; and it did not expand individual choice and happiness.
There is an absolute wealth of social science research data showing that our national experiment with divorce has produced serious negative physical and mental-health problems for both adults and children. Children and adults of divorce, on average, experience decreased levels of health and well-being, are more likely to seek psychiatric care, do less well on the job and in school, and do not soon recover from the negative impact of the divorce.11
