October
8, 2008
Column #1,415
"How to Cut America's Divorce Rate in Half"
by Mike McManus
In four out of five divorces, one spouse opposes it, according to Frank
Furstenburg and Andrew Cherlin in their book, "Divided Families."
Yet the unwilling spouse is always forced into divorce due to "No Fault Divorce"
laws in 49 states. It is called No Fault, because one does not have to prove a
spouse is guilty of faults - adultery or physical abuse - but can claim
"irreconcilable differences" and always get the divorce.
That's unfair to a spouse who believes the marriage IS reconcilable.
And it is tragic for their children. In "Twice Adopted:" Michael Reagan
described his pain when his parents, Ronald Reagan and Jane Wyman, divorced:
"Divorce is where two adults take everything that matters to a child - the
child's home, family, security and sense of being loved and protected - and they
smash it all up, leave it in ruins on the floor, then walk out and leave the
child to clean up the mess."
Ironically, California Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the first No Fault Law in 1969.
Years later he told Michael that it was his "greatest regret." No Fault laws
quickly swept the nation. The number of divorces soared 63 percent from 639,000
in 1969 to 1,036,000 by 1975.
Clergy bless 86 percent of marriages, who often quote Jesus: "What God has
joined together, let no man put asunder." Since 1970 America has put asunder 43
million marriages involving 41 million children.
No Fault is also unconstitutional. The 5th and 14th Amendments to the
Constitution guarantee that "no person be deprived of life, liberty or property
without the due process of law." Yet how can there be "due process" if the
spouse opposing the divorce always loses?
Therefore, I've written a short book, "How To Cut America's Divorce Rate in
Half: A Strategy Every State Should Adopt." (See www.MarriageSavers.org.) My
answer is simple. I argue that couples with minor children should be required
"to obtain written mutual consent for the dissolution of their marriage," unless
fault is proven.
Why? The state knows that children are best brought up by their own married
parents. Children of divorce are three times as likely as those from intact
homes to be expelled from school, to get pregnant as teens, are five times as
apt to live in poverty and up to 12 times as likely to be incarcerated.
Present law is "rigged to destroy families, not to preserve them," I argue. It
favors the person least interested in giving children a secure home. Reforming
No Fault to require Mutual Consent would give an equal voice to the spouse most
committed to children and the marriage. This would not save every marriage, but
both legal experts and religious leaders agree: "I believe this change in the
law could cut the divorce rate in half," said Rev. Richard Cizik, V.P. of the
National Association of Evangelicals, in a book endorsement.
"That would spare 500,000 children from seeing their parents divorce each year,
and save $50 to $100 billion in taxpayer funds. This is an issue which should be
taken to those running for state or federal offices in this election year."
What would Mutual Consent mean in practical terms? A process of negotiation
would commence. A husband tells his wife that he wants a divorce. She might
reply "No, I won't agree to it. We have two kids. You made a marriage vow `for
better for worse.' Let's go to a Marriage Encounter to improve our marriage."
He might then say, "I am in love with my secretary, but I want to be fair with
you, so I will give you my equity in the house." She could respond, "But I don't
earn enough money to pay the mortgage. I could sue you for divorce on grounds
of adultery, but I'll forgive you. Give up this woman, and let's heal our
marriage." He'd then have to decide whether to offer alimony as well as the
house, or to give up the other woman.
"By giving a spouse who wants to save the marriage an equal voice with an
unhappy mate, many marriages could be restored, perhaps saving most of them,"
asserts Evansville IN Catholic Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger.
Divorce Attorney John Crouch, President of Americans For Divorce Reform,
explains "The law would guide people to postpone the divorce decision until they
had worked out the details of how the divorce would actually work. A large
proportion of divorces would be avoided altogether. Divorces would be fairer to
both parties with less legal fees. I believe it could reduce divorce rates as
much as 50 percent.
"Changing the rules about ending a marriage would prevent a lot of marriages
from breaking down in the first place. They would not only influence the
decision to divorce, but the behavior and choices that lead to divorce." |
| |
30+ Years / 1700+ Columns |
| |
LATEST ARTICLE |
| |
June 22,
2017: Column 1869: The Need For Stronger Gun Laws |
| |
Recent Columns |
| |
Trump Should Be Impeached |
| |
Can Euthanasia Be Justified? |
| |
Trump's Budget - A Disaster |
| |
Trump Eliminates U.S. Abortion Funding Abroad |
| |
Comey Fired for Wrong Reasons |
| |
Should FBI Director Comey Be Fired? |
| |
Cohabitation: A Growing Problem - Part II |
| |
Cohabitation: A Growing Problem - Part I |
| |
Texting While Driving - A Killer |
| |
Why Have "Religious Nones" Tripled? |
| |
Norma McCorvey Roe of Roe v. Wade |
| |
The Worst Valentine: Cohabitation |
| |
Pornography: A Public Health Hazard |
| |
Christianity Gives Women Equal Opportunity |
| |
Sextortion Kills Teens |
| |
Assisted Suicide Is Growing |
| |
Muslim Violence
Against Christians |
| |
Recent Searches |
| |
alcoholism,
prayer,
guns,
same sex marriage,
abortion,
depression,
islam,
divorce,
polygamy,
religious liberty,
health care,
pornography,
teen sex,
abortion and infanticide,
Roe+v+Wade,
supreme court,
marriage,
movies,
violence,
celibacy,
living+together,
cohabitation,
ethics+and+religion,
pornography,
adultery,
divorce,
saving+marriages |
|
