Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! CounterPunch is entirely supported by our readers. Your donations pay for our small staff, tiny office, writers, designers, techies, bandwidth and servers. We don’t owe anything to advertisers, foundations, one-percenters or political parties. You are our only safety net. Please make a tax-deductible donation today.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Politics of Divorce

by

Marriage is a noose.

— Miguel de Cervantes, Don Quixote de la Mancha

Acrimonious divorce may be making a comeback thanks to the actions of enlightened state legislatures!  This does not refer to the process of splitting a finite number of children and a finite number of dollars between two parties, a process that has always had the potential to be acrimonious.  It refers to the simple act of ending the marriage.  And that’s great news for the lawyers, the private investigators and the tabloids, all of which made big bucks out of the unhappiness of unhappily married couples when acrimonious divorce was the rule.  The more prominent the divorcing pair, the bigger the bucks.  It was a win-win for all but the principals.

Until 1969, most state legislatures decreed that unhappily married couples should not be rid of one another until periods of time varying from a few months to more than one year had elapsed.   In addition to imposing long waiting periods, in days gone by the person seeking the divorce was forced to make specific allegations about the misconduct of the other spouse, allegations that were often salacious, even more often fictional and in many states, absolutely essential if the divorce was to be granted.  In those states the proof could be provided by a private investigator equipped with a camera and the ability to follow a wandering spouse into the confines of a hotel room and a non-spouse’s arms.

Unfortunately for those profiting from the divorce business, the legal system slowly acquiesced to demands that it reform, recognizing the absurdity of forcing unhappy couples to make up reasons for bringing their marriages to an end.  People thought reform made great good sense and what became known as no-fault divorces became the law of the land.

The first state to adopt no fault divorce was California under Ronald Reagan in 1969.   The last state to adopt this common sense approach to marital discord was New York in 2010.  Lengthy waiting periods and the need to fabricate reasons for the divorce became vestiges of a bygone era. If it all seemed too good to be true, it may prove to have been.

No-fault divorce was not intended to lessen the importance of marriage nor its beneficial effects.  During the 2012 presidential campaign Rick Santorum explained the virtue of marriage at a campaign rally in Iowa.  Addressing the crowd he said:  “What two things, that if you do, will guarantee that you will not be in poverty in America?  Number one, graduate from high school. Number two, get married.  Before you have children.  If you do those two things, you will be successful economically.”  Although not articulated in that particular speech, it follows that to fully enjoy the prosperity that accompanies marriage, people should stay married and the best way to insure that happens is to make it harder to get divorced.  And many states are now considering how to do that. Oklahoma is one of the  leaders in that movement.

Oklahomans know the importance of marriage as demonstrated by the fact that, according to the Pew Research Organization, 10% of all ever-married adults in that state have had at least three spouses,.  That is twice the national average.  Recognizing that, and because Oklahoma has the second highest divorce rate of any state in the country,  (you can’t have had “at least three spouses” without having had at least two divorces)  a state representative introduced a bill in early 2014 that would impose a six-month waiting period for most divorces. Another bill was introduced that would eliminate incompatibility as a ground for divorce.  Although those two  bills have not advanced, a third bill introduced a 90-day “cooling down period” following the filing of a divorce petition.  That bill has passed the Senate but has not yet been considered in the  House. Oklahoma is also considering extending the time between filing for divorce and getting a decree to six months.

In Kansas a legislator has introduced a bill that would remove incompatibility as a ground for divorce. If incompatibility is no longer a ground for divorce, divorcing couples can once again come up with creative reasons for splitting up.  In 2011 Arizona enacted a law that enables either divorcing spouse to extend the process by four months.  In 2013 three North Carolina state senators introduced a bill they called the “Healthy Marriage Act” that would replace the existing one year waiting period from the time a proceeding is begun until a divorce is granted, to two years following the date a spouse give the other spouse written notice, duly notarized, that he or she intends to file for divorce at the end of the two year period. That has not yet been enacted.

Today a steadily increasing number of people are cohabiting rather than marrying.  According to the National Health Statistic Report in 1995 39% of women in the United States between the ages of 15-44 entered into marriage as their first union.  In the 2006-2010 period that percentage decreased to 23%.  Those cohabiting as their first unions went from 34% in 1995 to 48% in the later period. Thanks to the efforts of legislatures in states like Oklahoma and Kansas, these numbers are sure to increase.  One can’t help but wonder if those trying to make it more difficult for unhappily married couples to get divorced know what they are doing.  The answer is,  probably not.

Christopher Brauchli can be emailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

September 29, 2016
Robert Fisk
The Butcher of Qana: Shimon Peres Was No Peacemaker
James Rose
Politics in the Echo Chamber: How Trump Becomes President
Russell Mokhiber
The Corporate Vice Grip on the Presidential Debates
Daniel Kato
Rethinking the Race over Race: What Clinton Should do Now About ‘Super-Predators’
Peter Certo
Clinton’s Awkward Stumbles on Trade
Fran Shor
Demonizing the Green Party Vote
Rev. William Alberts
Trump’s Road Rage to the White House
Luke O'Brien
Because We Couldn’t Have Sanders, You’ll Get Trump
Michael J. Sainato
How the Payday Loan Industry is Obstructing Reform
Robert Fantina
You Can’t Have War Without Racism
Gregory Barrett
Bad Theater at the United Nations (Starring Kerry, Power, and Obama
James A Haught
The Long, Long Journey to Female Equality
Thomas Knapp
US Military Aid: Thai-ed to Torture
Jack Smith
Must They be Enemies? Russia, Putin and the US
Gilbert Mercier
Clinton vs Trump: Lesser of Two Evils or the Devil You Know
Tom H. Hastings
Manifesting the Worst Old Norms
George Ella Lyon
This Just in From Rancho Politico
September 28, 2016
Eric Draitser
Stop Trump! Stop Clinton!! Stop the Madness (and Let Me Get Off)!
Ted Rall
The Thrilla at Hofstra: How Trump Won the Debate
Robert Fisk
Cliché and Banality at the Debates: Trump and Clinton on the Middle East
Patrick Cockburn
Cracks in the Kingdom: Saudi Arabia Rocked by Financial Strains
Lowell Flanders
Donald Trump, Islamophobia and Immigrants
Shane Burley
Defining the Alt Right and the New American Fascism
Jan Oberg
Ukraine as the Border of NATO Expansion
Ramzy Baroud
Ban Ki-Moon’s Legacy in Palestine: Failure in Words and Deeds
Gareth Porter
How We Could End the Permanent War State
Sam Husseini
Debate Night’s Biggest Lie Was Told by Lester Holt
Laura Carlsen
Ayotzinapa’s Message to the World: Organize!
Binoy Kampmark
The Triumph of Momentum: Re-Electing Jeremy Corbyn
David Macaray
When the Saints Go Marching In
Seth Oelbaum
All Black Lives Will Never Matter for Clinton and Trump
Adam Parsons
Standing in Solidarity for a Humanity Without Borders
Cesar Chelala
The Trump Bubble
September 27, 2016
Louisa Willcox
The Tribal Fight for Nature: From the Grizzly to the Black Snake of the Dakota Pipeline
Paul Street
The Roots are in the System: Charlotte and Beyond
Jeffrey St. Clair
Idiot Winds at Hofstra: Notes on the Not-So-Great Debate
Mark Harris
Clinton, Trump, and the Death of Idealism
Mike Whitney
Putin Ups the Ante: Ceasefire Sabotage Triggers Major Offensive in Aleppo
Anthony DiMaggio
The Debates as Democratic Façade: Voter “Rationality” in American Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Punishing the Punished: the Torments of Chelsea Manning
Paul Buhle
Why “Snowden” is Important (or How Kafka Foresaw the Juggernaut State)
Jack Rasmus
Hillary’s Ghosts
Brian Cloughley
Billions Down the Afghan Drain
Lawrence Davidson
True Believers and the U.S. Election
Matt Peppe
Taking a Knee: Resisting Enforced Patriotism
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]