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:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
February 24, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Pierre M. Sprey - Franklin “Chuck” Spinney
Sleepwalking Into a Nuclear Arms Race with Russia
Ajamu Baraka
Malcolm X and Human Rights in the Time of Trumpism: Transcending the Master’s Tools
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Exxon’s End Game Theory
John Laforge
Did Obama Pave the Way for More Torture?
Mike Whitney
McMaster Takes Charge: Trump Relinquishes Control of Foreign Policy 
Paul Street
Liberal Hypocrisy, “Late-Shaming,” and Russia-Blaming in the Age of Trump
Patrick Cockburn
The Coming Decline of US and UK Power
Louisa Willcox
The Endangered Species Act: a Critical Safety Net Now Threatened by Congress and Trump
Vijay Prashad
A Foreign Policy of Cruel Populism
John Chuckman
Israel’s Terrible Problem: Two States or One?
Matthew Stevenson
The Parallax View of Donald Trump
Norman Pollack
Drumbeat of Fascism: Find, Arrest, Deport
Stan Cox
Can the Climate Survive Electoral Democracy? Maybe. Can It Survive Capitalism? No.
Ramzy Baroud
The Trump-Netanyahu Circus: Now, No One Can Save Israel from Itself
Edward Hunt
The United States of Permanent War
David Morgan
Trump and the Left: a Case of Mass Hysteria?
Pete Dolack
The Bait and Switch of Public-Private Partnerships
Mike Miller
What Kind of Movement Moment Are We In? 
Elliot Sperber
Why Resistance is Insufficient
Brian Cloughley
What are You Going to Do About Afghanistan, President Trump?
Binoy Kampmark
Warring in the Oncology Ward
Yves Engler
Remembering the Coup in Ghana
Jeremy Brecher
“Climate Kids” v. Trump: Trial of the Century Pits Trump Climate Denialism Against Right to a Climate System Capable of Sustaining Human Life”
Jonathan Taylor
Hate Trump? You Should Have Voted for Ron Paul
Franklin Lamb
Another Small Step for Syrian Refugee Children in Beirut’s “Aleppo Park”
Ron Jacobs
The Realist: Irreverence Was Their Only Sacred Cow
Andre Vltchek
Lock up England in Jail or an Insane Asylum!
Rev. William Alberts
Grandiose Marketing of Spirituality
Paul DeRienzo
Three Years Since the Kitty Litter Disaster at Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Eric Sommer
Organize Workers Immigrant Defense Committees!
Steve Cooper
A Progressive Agenda
David Swanson
100 Years of Using War to Try to End All War
Andrew Stewart
The 4CHAN Presidency: A Media Critique of the Alt-Right
Edward Leer
Tripping USA: The Chair
Randy Shields
Tom Regan: The Life of the Animal Rights Party
Nyla Ali Khan
One Certain Effect of Instability in Kashmir is the Erosion of Freedom of Expression and Regional Integration
Rob Hager
The Only Fake News That Probably Threw the Election to Trump was not Russian 
Mike Garrity
Why Should We Pay Billionaires to Destroy Our Public Lands? 
Mark Dickman
The Prophet: Deutscher’s Trotsky
Christopher Brauchli
The Politics of the Toilet Police
Ezra Kronfeld
Joe Manchin: a Senate Republicrat to Dispute and Challenge
Clancy Sigal
The Nazis Called It a “Rafle”
Louis Proyect
Socialism Betrayed? Inside the Ukrainian Holodomor
Charles R. Larson
Review: Timothy B. Tyson’s “The Blood of Emmett Till”
David Yearsley
Founding Father of American Song
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail