FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Politics of Divorce

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:
September 24, 2018
Binoy Kampmark
Casting Kavanaugh: The Trump Supreme Court Drama
Max Wilbert
Blue Angels: the Naked Face of Empire
Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
Ted Rall
Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From
Lauren Regan
The Day the Valves Turned: Defending the Pipeline Protesters
Ralph Nader
Questions, Questions Where are the Answers?
Binoy Kampmark
Deplatforming Germaine Greer
Raouf Halaby
It Should Not Be A He Said She Said Verdict
Robert Koehler
The Accusation That Wouldn’t Go Away
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Making Workers Tweet About How Great It is to Work There
Robby Sherwin
Rabbi, Rabbi, Where For Art Thou Rabbi?
Vern Loomis
Has Something Evil This Way Come?
Steve Baggarly
Disarm Trident Walk Ends in Georgia
Graham Peebles
Priorities of the Time: Peace
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail