Stolen Vows

The Illusion of No-Fault Divorce and
The Rise of the American Divorce Industry

The Madison Eagle, December 7, 2002
Madison (Morris County), N. J.

POINT / COUNTERPOINT

STEPHEN LANDFIELD & LARRY CIRIGNANO

Marriage and Divorce --- Our Evolving Views

POINT.........
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE LAWS - IS REFORM REALLY NEEDED?
by Stephen D. Landfield

Among the items on the right-wing social agenda is an insidious attack on marriage and divorce laws. Under the guise of preservation of the family, conservatives seek to make it harder to marry and at the same time, more difficult to divorce. They have mounted an attack on one of the best ideas in family law of the last century; the concept of the no-fault divorce.

First they say, let's make it harder to get married, so as to ensure that "the institution of marriage is held up high as something so important that when people make that decision they understand the responsibilities," according to Florida Governor, Jeb Bush. Florida passed a law giving a discount rate on marriage licenses to couples taking a marriage preparation course. Not a terrible idea, and at least not a mandatory one.

Frankly however, most people already understand the seriousness of the obligation they are entering into when they marry. To suggest otherwise is just plain silly. And no course, no matter how thorough, can prepare a couple for everything that life will throw at them.

With eleven million Americans already living with an unmarried partner, it makes sense to take steps to promote marriage, not to make it more difficult. We already impose application fees, waiting periods and ample enough other requirements on marriage licenses.

Prior to the 1960's divorces were difficult to obtain. New Jersey, before 1971, had one of the most restrictive divorce laws in the nation. These laws generally required one spouse to be found to be "at
fault" before a divorce could be granted. In some places, the only ground for divorce was adultery. Judges spent most of their time litigating bitter issues of fault and recrimination. While conservatives may yearn for a return to those "good old days," the fact is they weren't so good, and as a result of growing public pressure, and people trapped in hopeless, unhappy marriages with no way out, states began adopting "no-fault" laws.

The basis of these laws is a simple de-emphasis of fault and wrongdoing, and in it's place, a recognition that some marriages are "irretrievably broken." While it is true that the enactment of these laws saw an increase in the rate of divorce, and while it is also true that nearly 50% of all marriages end in divorce, I can honestly conclude as an attorney practicing family law for nearly 20 years, it would be wrong to say that the majority of people who came to my office would be happier if they were forced to remain in their marriage. While there are exceptions to the rule, most have already tried or considered counseling, mediation, trial separation and other intervention techniques conservatives would impose on them.

Interestingly, while pressure to restrict divorce comes from social and religious conservatives, other conservatives wisely question the government interference in people's lives. Ironically, considering those who like to lecture us on family values, as comedian Al Franken noted, what Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, Phil Gramm and George Will all have in common is that they are only married one time less than Rush Limbaugh!

This is not to say that divorce is desirable or should be promoted. Rather, it is to recognize that some marriages should not be saved. Certainly, ending dysfunctional marriages by allowing the parties to
split on the basis of irreconcilable differences is a fairer way to end relationships than the requirement of a return to fault based grounds, where people will be forced to fight lengthy, expensive legal battles.

Isn't it better for a couple to divorce than to remain together, in a state of constant bitterness and marital strife? Should people be required to remain in physically violent or abusive relationships? It might in fact make it more difficult for timorous, victimized and battered wives to seek divorce, if they had to establish fault to escape their misery.

Those who would restrict divorce claim the impact of divorce on children is a reason to keep families together. Are they seriously suggesting that the children of high-conflict, constantly fighting, but intact families, where there is little love or respect, and where arguments rarely end in compromise, really fare better than children in a divorce, where both parents share custody and time-sharing with them?

University of Pennsylvania Professor Frank Furstenberg notes, divorce is a consequential issue, but much of the impact on the children "is due to conditions that precede the divorce and have little to do with the actual breakup of the family." Children do better with two emotionally healthy divorced parents, who do not embroil them in their marital conflicts.

Can mandated premarital counseling, or covenant marriage, where couples agree at the onset to restrict their legal recourse to divorce, really make couples happy till death do them part? No more so than a seat belt prepares one for an automobile accident.

Rather than raising the barriers through the reestablishment of fault grounds, it would be better if we insure that our legal system allows for speedy and inexpensive resolution of marital disputes, mediation where appropriate, enforcement of support obligations and child custody and visitation agreements. Then divorce, if not a positive experience, could at least have a positive conclusion.

(Editor's Note: The author, a resident of Roxbury Township, is a Morris Plains attorney and a contributing political columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper. He is an adjunct family member at Raritan Valley Community College in Branchburg Township, and the former chair of the Morris County Human Relations Commission. He is vice chairman of the New Jersey Human Relations Council. His e-mail address is steved555@nac.net. Mr. Landfield has also launched "Practical Politics with Steve Landfield," which can be found at www.practicalpolitics.net)

..........COUNTERPOINT
SHOULD WE MAKE GETTING MARRIED HARDER?
by Larry Cirignano

Marriage is a contract, a promise. Not to live forever. Not to live happily ever after. A promise that in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, a couple will live together as man and wife. "Until death
do us part."

Society, that is, all of us collectively, have an interest in maintaining that relationship. Families are an essential building block of society. Civilization depends on strong families.

There are lots of reasons for divorce. There are always two sides, sometimes three, and always some truth to all sides.

But a few things are undeniable. Children who live in households that have two parents do better on all kinds of levels. Children from single parent households are generally worse off financially, emotionally, and on educational test scores.

Children from divorced families face increased risks from greater chances of depression, early pregnancy, suicide, criminal behavior, and unstable future relationships.

That is why society frowns on divorce. Initially, divorce was the exception rather than the rule. Today, over 50% of the marriages end in divorce. It was not until January 1, 1970, that no fault divorce began in California and eventually swept across the country.

Over the past thirty years divorce rates have skyrocketed. We have gone from Hillary Clinton's "It takes a village" to Al Gore's recent pronouncement of "emotional attachment." In his new book, which, no one is buying, he is promoting all of the nontraditional families in a sort of "social ecology" where he redefines traditional family.

It may be true that more and more kids are growing up in single parent households, but society ought not be promoting and encouraging it. We ought to support single parents and work to assist them but our goal and our role models ought to be a married, two parent household. And a marriage should be between a man and a woman. Even, my worthy liberal opponent doesn't want to debate the gay marriage proposal.

Our courts are increasingly inundated with new variations and questions regarding the nuclear family. Custody battles over dogs, furniture, season tickets and even frozen embryos are taking up valuable
courtroom time.

Perhaps we ought to be exploring making it harder to get married. In a number of states they now offer "Covenant marriages" which are legally much tougher to get out of. They can only be dissolved for specific reasons such as adultery. Just offering the alternative, causes couples to rethink getting married. "Why don't you want to get a covenant marriage?", is a new question couples are asking each other.

Life and children do not come with instructions and there are no magic recipes but requiring instructional classes before a marriage can be very beneficial. Couples who attend pre-cana classes are significantly more likely to survive the first five years of marriage.

The Catholic Church requires couples to attend classes and wait at least six months to a year, to get married. They do not support covenant marriages because they only support marriages that are meant to be permanent.

Certainly we ought to promote getting married before having children. Many couples used to get married because they were pregnant. Some people like the Governor of Maryland, who just divorced his wife and married one of his staffers, still do. I don't think that he is a good role model but it beats having an abortion.

The New Jersey Family Policy Council (www.njfpc.org) publishes the List of Leading Cultural Indicators that charts things like divorce rates and suicides. There is strong evidence of a deterioration of the moral values that conservatives are usually criticized for promoting. If we are going to make a plan on where we are going we need to look at where we have been and their research is very helpful.

A good alternative to Al Gore's book is: Stolen Vows by Judy Parejko (www.stolenvows.com) a former marriage mediator. In it she traces the history of No-fault divorce and the rise of the American divorce industry.

You can watch three people get divorced on television every day. It has become a form of entertainment. I realize that some marriages are abusive and unsalvageable but we ought not allow all of the financial incentives to expedite and facilitate divorce, to effectively drive the country's divorce rate higher.

I think we can all agree that America would be a better place if we had more people being celebrated by Paul Harvey and Willard Scott for their longevity in marriages and fewer Liz Taylors and celebrity divorces.

(Editor's Note: The author, a resident of Bedminster Township, is a lawyer by training and president of CatholicVote.org, a non-partisan organization of lay Catholics that works to identify, register, educate, motivate and turn out Catholic voters. He has worked on many state, national and international political campaigns. He can be reached at LarryVote@aol.com.)

Copyright © 1995 - 2002 PowerOne Media, Inc.