Freedom Of Religion, Freedom From Religion, And Especially Freedom From Some Other Guy's Religion In The Right To Divorce
People make mistakes in getting married.
Research finds that children are harmed when parents divorce and the family is torn apart -- but children are also harmed by eating Frosted Flakes.
We don't force people to feed their children a certain breakfast, and it isn't right to force a couple to remain together -- even if divorce is worse for their children (and much worse for some children, as you'll see at the above link, which takes a conservative approach to the harm).
(A caveat on the divorce thing: It seems to be better for parents to divorce if it is a terrible and violent marriage.)
Well, a religious guy in Texas, State Rep. Matt Krause, is trying to impose his views about the sanctity of marriage on everybody else. Alex Zielinski writes in the San Antonio Current that Krause wants to repeal a person's right to get divorced simply because they have irreconcilable differences (aka "no-fault" divorce). Krause also seeks to substantially delay the time it takes to get a divorce, from 60 days (currently) to 180 days:
The Fort Worth Republican has filed two bills for the looming 2017 Texas Legislature: One that more than doubles the amount of time a couple must wait to finalize a divorce, and another to repeal a person's right to divorce for non-criminal reasons. Krause said he filed these bills in hopes of giving children a better future -- and preserving the sanctity of marriage.But taking away Texans' freedom to divorce without cause may actually worsen a child's wellbeing, lock abused spouses into violent relationships, and essentially make divorce a privilege of the wealthy.
"Marriage has been devalued over the past decades," Krause said. "It's time to admit we made a mistake."
Krause believes "no fault" divorces -- ones that are simply rooted in a couple's unresolvable differences -- are the culprit.
These "no fault" divorces have only been legal in Texas since 1970. Up until then, a person had to prove in court that their spouse was "at fault," meaning they were either cruel, adulterous, a felon, had intentionally abandoned them, moved away (in a mutual agreement), or lived in a mental hospital.
The 1970 law intended to cut back on the constant issues with falsified evidence in divorce court and to avoid unnecessary animosity between divorcees with children -- for the kid's sake. After such laws passed across the country, however, social scientists stumbled upon a significant unforeseen benefit.
By 2006, states that passed the law saw a 8-16 percent decline in female suicide, a 30 percent decline in domestic violence for both men and women, and a 10 percent decline in females murdered by their partners. As marriage rates declined in America, so have the rates domestic abuse.
Krause, however, said his bill will reinstate a "century-old law" to replace its predecessor, a law he calls a "mistake."
When a member of a couple with children writes to me for advice, if they aren't in a horrible situation -- if say, they just aren't all that excited by their spouse anymore -- I encourage them to see whether they can make it work until the kids go off to college.
It's my belief from interviews I've done with anthropologist Sarah Hrdy (which I have yet to use) and others that it's the stability of a family and the continuation of that family that's very important for kids and what goes missing in divorce.
Still, I don't think a legislator with religious beliefs has a right -- nor does anyone -- to force people to stay together unless one of them has committed a criminal act, committed adultery, or any of the other options for proving "fault."
As law prof Jonathan Turley writes:
Krause ran for office as someone who would bring his faith to his public office. He is the son of a Baptist pastor and his mother is a teacher of the Castle Hills First Baptist School (from where he graduated). Krause attended San Diego Christian College and is a graduate in the very first graduating class of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University School of Law in Lynchburg, Virginia. He then opened a Texas office of Liberty Counsel.He is entitled to his views and clearly reflects the views of a majority of his constituents. However, he would rightfully object if other religions sought to impose their moral code on this family or try to make family decisions more difficult to reflect their own moral codes.
I am all in favor of Krause campaigning to educate couples to resist the temptation to divorce and to try to resolve differences in the interests of their children. It is his use of public powers that is problematic for those of us who prefer to keep the government out of our homes and private affairs.
Conservatives aren't really for "small government" if they're only for that about stuff the Democrats and the various shades of commies want.
Wow, does this guy have it backwards. If he made it harder to get married, there's a 'way better chance of reducing domestic violence, etc., that way.
I can tell you with certainty that sailors get married to the first thing that they can have sex with, and girls marry just to get the hell out of their town with a guaranteed place to live.
That's not gonna lower the single motherhood rate, but they weren't going to get married for any reason whatsoever because that would kill their government check.
Radwaste at January 10, 2017 9:48 PM
Some states (mine included) have a "covenant marriage," in which the parties agreed (among other things) not to seek a no-fault divorce. It was supported by religious folks, but damn few of them seem eager to enjoy its benefits; at last count covenant marriages accounted for fewer than 1 percent of those in the state.
This busybody seems to want everyone to enter into a covenant marriage. Whoopee for him and the little woman, but other grownups may prefer to enter into their own contracts and dissolutions without his meddling in their affairs.
Kevin at January 10, 2017 10:10 PM
"Still, I don't think a legislator with religious beliefs has a right -- nor does anyone -- to force people to stay together unless one of them has committed a criminal act, committed adultery, or any of the other options for proving "fault."
There is no law requiring you to live together when you are married, and no law requiring you to live apart after the divorce.
I actually have a good friend who lives with his x wife.
No one is forcing anyone to stay together. It might force them to stay *legally married* for about three months longer.
For big problems you might need a separation agreement and possibly a restraining order but you don't need a final decree to move out and start seperating your assets.
The bad news is that divorce with kids is already a seriously long process in most states especially if it is contested or there is a custody battle.
I think it took my BIL about two years total to actually get a final decree from the date that his wife filed in Minnesota.
This sounds like some of the same confusion we see on this board between health insurance and health care. Those two things aren't synonymous either.
Isab at January 10, 2017 10:15 PM
Sumbuddy speak up if it shouldn't.
And rehabilitate it... Concisely and immediately.
Crid at January 11, 2017 1:14 AM
Isab is correct and I think the legislative action is DOA just due to our orneriness about being told what we can/can not do in our lives.
My divorce decades ago required that we live separate lives for 8? months. Any sexual contact caused that clock to reset so a quickie or weekend recreational contact had to be hidden from court (no big deal).
No law stopped us from being civil, from agreeing to property settlement, agreeing to joint custody, and "inventing" a "reason" for the divorce. The lawyer we used and the judge was not happy but ...
Now my cousin OTOH had to leave Kentucky and wait until his sons became 18 to see them again. (They live w/him now.) He married unwisely on many levels and really pissed her off some 10 years later.
Bob in Texas at January 11, 2017 5:29 AM
We don't force people to feed their children a certain breakfast
Let's not give the government ideas, ok?
I R A Darth Aggie at January 11, 2017 6:01 AM
"Conservatives aren't really for "small government" if they're only for that about stuff the Democrats and the various shades of commies want."
Republicans aren't a monolithic group. This guy sounds like an evangelical. They are not small government people. This is not new news.
Also, he has the wrong solution. Marriage should be harder to enter in to not harder to end. At least if you want more successful marriages. As Bob points out you just go back to people lying about why they are getting divorced.
Ben at January 11, 2017 6:19 AM
I don't have a problem with no-fault divorce. Hell, I went through one. The breakup was civil; we divided our assets before we went to court, and no children were involved. I don't even have a problem when kids are involved, provided that the couple arrives at a custody agreement and division of responsibilities that is acceptable to the court.
But somewhere along the line, no-fault divorce magically transformed into unilateral divorce: "I'm divorcing you, and I'm taking the kids and most of the assets, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it." That I have a problem with. It appears to me that unilateral divorce accounts for most of the egregious cases, where the spouse that filed first wins and the other spouse ends up with most of the obligations of the marriage and none of the benefits. Young people see this happening and it disincentivizes them from wanting to marry. In the case of unilateral divorce, the burden should be on the spouse who wants out and the spouse who doesn't should be made whole. But far too often, it works the other way around.
Cousin Dave at January 11, 2017 7:21 AM
Rad, Ben:
From Ann Landers' column, 1993 (I'd cut and paste the whole thing, but I can't):
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2519&dat=19930706&id=sBpgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yW0NAAAAIBAJ&pg=1544,1222422&hl=en
"Dear Ann Landers: I recenlty read your column about divorce being too easy to get. I believe that is a mistake. The real problem is that it is too easy to get married...
"...There should be a law in all states that makes it mandatory to be officially engaged for at least six months..."
That is, AFTER getting the marriage license.
And Cousin Dave: One source defines unilateral divorce as "a divorce in which one spouse terminates the marriage without the consent of the other spouse."
If such a divorce is started because of physical abuse or chronic adultery, I don't see why the burden should be on the spouse who wants the divorce (assuming he/she is not the one committing the abuse or adultery).
lenona at January 11, 2017 7:48 AM
"It might force them to stay *legally married* for about three months longer."
It's not the government's business to do this.
"Republicans aren't a monolithic group. This guy sounds like an evangelical. They are not small government people."
They claim to be.
There are many problems, Cousin Dave, with how divorce treats spouses, especially men, but forcing them to stay married longer or killing the possibility of getting divorced unless your spouse does something criminal, etc., is not the solution, nor is it the government's place.
Amy Alkon at January 11, 2017 8:17 AM
> Ann Landers' column, 1993 (I'd cut
> and paste the whole thing, but...
What do you do for a living?
Crid at January 11, 2017 8:55 AM
"It's not the government's business to do this."
Oh contraire, it is exactly the state governments business to dissolve a contract that you entered into under their laws and protections.
If you didnt want to submit to their juisdiction, you should never have applied for a license.
As cousin Dave pointed out no fault divorce devolved into unilateral divorce. In my mind, no sane man would enter into such a one sided contract.
Isab at January 11, 2017 9:07 AM
"They claim to be."
That's news to me and was not apparent during the Primary.
Unions and Dem supporters claim to be for the workers and the children. Snort.
The high speed rail system is for commuters. Snort.
This stuff is good enough w/o bringing politics into it. I mean it would be hard to make up stuff that's more weird.
Bob in Texas at January 11, 2017 9:41 AM
Crid: "What do you do for a living?"
My bet is something to do w/Ms. Manners stuff. Or a great memory.
Still cool as Chili Palmer might say.
Bob in Texas at January 11, 2017 9:44 AM
"If such a divorce is started because of physical abuse or chronic adultery, I don't see why the burden should be on the spouse who wants the divorce (assuming he/she is not the one committing the abuse or adultery)."
But that's an at-fault divorce, and it's been covered by existing laws since before no-fault divorce was legalized. (An argument can be made that the laws have not been applied fairly in the past, but that's a different problem.) It should not be possible to get a contested divorce, especially one in which the party who files is going to wind up with the lion's share of the benefits, simply by making unfounded accusations.
Cousin Dave at January 11, 2017 10:01 AM
Dave: Yes, well, one can't always get evidence easily - violence doesn't always leave marks, for one.
I admit that since no-fault divorce has been called harmful to BOTH sexes, I don't know what exactly makes it better than the prior system (leaving aside the likelihood that things were pretty bad for divorced mothers before the 1990s, when the child support laws grew real teeth).
Crid: Mostly in entertainment, editing and organization. I've been in three independent movies too (not that anyone's likely to see them).
lenona at January 11, 2017 10:21 AM
"I can tell you with certainty that sailors get married to the first thing that they can have sex with"
No we don't.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 11, 2017 11:21 AM
""Republicans aren't a monolithic group. This guy sounds like an evangelical. They are not small government people."
They claim to be."
No, they really don't. Evangelicals have never been small government people. They are responsible for most of those can't buy alcohol on Sunday laws. Republicans often claim to be small government people. But like I said, they aren't monolithic. Fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and such are small government people. Evangelicals never have been and never really claimed to be. And they aren't even a majority of the Republican party.
Additionally there is a different split for Republican leaders and politicians and Republican voters too. The TEA party is very strong among Republican voters. They are still working on politicians and leaders. The commerce party is an insignificant percentage of Republican voters. But they are probably the largest group among Republican leaders and politicians. And those commerce party people are not small government in any way shape or form. Romney with Romneycare is not small government.
Ben at January 11, 2017 11:45 AM
And if Trump is a small government guy I will be flabbergasted. He wants to kill off certain parts of the federal government. But he certainly wants to expand many other parts. He is a New York Republican. How much can you expect?
Ben at January 11, 2017 11:48 AM
> My bet is something to do
> w/Ms. Manners stuff. Or a
> great memory.
Yeah, her style of citation and her energy for it are as distinctive as the points she likes to make... (All are charming.) I can't imagine, have no clue what Lenona's life is rillylike.
Crid at January 11, 2017 12:09 PM
Whaddya know, Big Mac has a great new column about divorce today...
...And McArdle doesn't need to affirm that a bowl of sugared cereal is as destructive as having your capacity for human attachment shredded by parental incompetence.
Crid at January 11, 2017 12:13 PM
☑ Isab at January 11, 2017 9:07 AM
Crid at January 11, 2017 12:14 PM
The Republicans Party has three wings or schools of thought:
Ronald Reagan favored the Goldwater wing, but managed to put together a coalition of all three wings which gave him three election victories. No other Republican has successfully united these three disparate wings the way he did.
Most Republican politicians are a mixture of these three schools of thought with candidates for national office playing to all three in order to attract voters and support.
Compared to the Democrats, this is a mixed up party. The Dems are a straight up leftist party now. Once a party of blue collar working class folks, the party has morphed through flirtations with left wing schools of thought into a leftist party, favoring socialist rhetoric ("tax the rich" and "higher minimum wage") and special interest issues. There are two forms of Democrat these days, limousine liberal and socialist radical. The big issue separating them is Wall Street.
Conan the Grammarian at January 11, 2017 1:25 PM
I'd say there is a third form of Democrat-- identity politics puritans. They're not well liked by the limousine liberals IMO or the socialist radicals (remember how they violently attacked sanders and his supporters as sexist homophobic racists for daring to go up against Brazile, Pelosi and Clinton?).
Ppen at January 11, 2017 6:38 PM
Nice analysis, Conan. A few thoughts to add:
* The Rockefeller Republicans were the ones who have been in charge of the party since the end of the Gingrich era. They got W elected, but other than that, they have had little success. And now most of their constituency has been co-opted by the fascist (in the dictionary sense) wing of the Democrats. In face, it's where a lot of the Democrats' power, wealth and elitism lies.
* The social conservatives are a piece of the working class that the Democrats started to push away in the 1960s. I would argue that they are small-government concerning the federal level, or were up until the 1980s; traditionally, they got their policy preferences enshrined into law at the state and local level. (To an extent, this is a holdover from Reconstruction, when the federal government was implementing policies that they did not approve of. The soc-cons figured out that they could succeed at the state and local level when they couldn't at the federal level.)
* The Goldwater Republicans are an interesting group. Almost none of them voted for Trump in the primaries, but a lot of them voted for Trump in the general election. They aren't much favored by either of the other wings of the party, but both of those other wings know that they can't succeed without the Goldwaters, who do a lot of the intellectual heavy lifting for the party. I think they are a lot more distributed around the country than the other two groups.
(Full disclosure: I view myself as a Goldwater Republican.)
Ppen has an interesting point about the identity puritans. (And I could add the feminist sex puritans to that mix...) They strongly favor authoritarian government as an ideological preference, as opposed to the Rockefeller Democrats who simply take their power position as a given and don't think about it much. Of course, the problem that the identity puritans run into is that their ideology compels them to totem-pole each other as we've seen this week with the Washington women's march. Another faction could exploit this to pick off a lot of their supporters. We saw it happen with married women in this election, and there are hints around that we'll be seeing more of it with other groups.
Cousin Dave at January 12, 2017 7:28 AM
"No we don't."
Didn't say, "all", Gog. If you were in, you saw it happen.
Radwaste at January 12, 2017 9:10 PM
A 6-month waiting period to finalize a divorce doesn't seem particularly onerous. In California that's the legal minimum. (I know this because I just went through a divorce.) If you've settled all your issues privately and agreed on how assets will be split, you can live as if you were divorced before you even file. If not, it's probably going to drag on for more than six months anyway.
Rex Little at January 13, 2017 7:45 AM
"A 6-month waiting period to finalize a divorce doesn't seem particularly onerous."
California has a waiting period to buy a gun, not to sell one or turn one in to the cops.
How many Vegas quickies last?
Radwaste at January 14, 2017 10:37 AM
Sorry Goddess - your anti religion blinders are hiding the real issue from you.
Can't think of any other contract that one can simply walk away from - not my mortgage, not my employment contract, not my contracts with freelance clients, my kids' private school... all these folks will come after you.
Only in marriage is it "progress" to allow one spouse to upend the table on their own say-so - and take assets with them.
Sorry - like so much destructive "progressive" law that was passed "for the children" or "to protect women" - the no-fault movement was intended by Lefties to weaken commitment to marriage.
As other here have posted, "no fault" divorce has become "unilateral-shakedown-by-empowered-woman-in-mid-life-crisis" divorce. Serving the left-wing purpose of dissuading more and more men from entering into matrimony - and further destabilizing the social fabric.
Ben David at January 15, 2017 5:24 AM
"Didn't say, "all", Gog. If you were in, you saw it happen."
Since we're being pissy, I believe the missing modifier would be "some".
By using no modifier the statement refers to any and all sailors.
"If you were in" - yes, I was in, but I don't consider my service makes me superior to my fellow citizens who were too cowardly and anti-American and lazy to serve. That would be wrong.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 15, 2017 6:33 PM
"the no-fault movement was intended by Lefties to weaken commitment to marriage."
Link?
Thanks.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 15, 2017 6:34 PM
Leave a comment