Posted on 05/08/2015 6:49:06 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas
What is no-fault divorce?
When you ask most people, they will say it’s a mutual-consent process, or that it preserves privacy, or that it eliminates blame for the failure of the marriage.
Not many people will answer that it’s a lawsuit in which one party is suing the other party. And even fewer will know that it came from the Soviet Union.
Like previous divorce actions, no-fault divorce is still a lawsuit, which means that one party is invoking the state’s police powers against the other party. The main difference now is that the person filing for divorce no longer has to provide a reason for why they’re doing it. This type of lawsuit is unique; it’s the only type of legal action devoid of any ‘claim’ (complaint), and if the party being sued doesn’t know the complaint, then there’s no possibility of a defense.
As for the communist origins of no-fault divorce, a 1975 law review article by Donald M. Bolas entitled, “No Fault Divorce: Born in the Soviet Union?” explains how, after speaking with Russian lawyers, he stumbled upon how Soviet divorce law may have influenced our own laws.
Bolas explains that when the Bolsheviks took over in 1917, religious marriages were no longer recognized by the state. Marriage became a “state action” and divorce became merely an administrative process known as Russian Post Card Divorce. One spouse simply filled out the paperwork at city hall and the other party was then notified by mail that they were no longer married. Some people married twenty times. There was also a ‘free love’ bureau where people could sign up for partners.
The fact that this type of law increases the divorce rate is proven every day in the United States. Since the onset of no-fault divorce, the divorce rate doubled with one divorce granted for every two marriages that take place. In terms of sheer numbers, approximately a million divorces are finalized each year, translating into 3,000 divorces every day.
How coincidental that the U.S. divorce rate is among the highest in the world, vying only with Russia!
Another interesting fact about no-fault divorce is how strikingly similar its underlying thinking is to abortion law. In fact, laws dealing with both subjects were being drafted at the same meeting. This is how it all began.
History
In 1970, a national group of lawyers gathered for their annual meeting at the Colony Motor Hotel in Clayton, Missouri, just outside of St. Louis. At this meeting, two new ‘model’ laws were being drafted and debated. These laws would serve as ‘blueprints’ for state legislators around the country to enact as state laws. The purpose was to create more uniformity in state laws. One of these laws was called the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act (UMDA) and the other was the Uniform Abortion Act (then, in 1973, Roe v. Wade overturned all state abortion laws).
A common theme found in both of these debates was the word viability and this word would be operative in rationalizing both of these laws.
In the case of abortion, the discussion revolved around the viability of the human life, meaning its potential for survival outside the mother. The divorce debate was similar: a marriage could be terminated “on the basis that it no longer is a viable institution,” according to the transcripts that have been preserved from these debates.
Using viability as the operative term would soften the discussion on divorce, or abortion, making these new laws more palatable to the public. This way of thinking would also help cover up the truth so we wouldn’t have to ‘look’ at the reality: that both are really destructive acts. One act destroys the product of the one-flesh union while the purpose of the other act is to destroy the one-flesh union itself.
During a pregnancy, we now are able to ‘see’ the reality of life due to technical advances. However, in the case of marriage, there isn’t any test. One person’s word suffices. Judges and lawyers don’t check for vital signs in the marriages, which assumes they are all dead on arrival.
The label given to this new type of divorce is something of a misnomer. The term ‘no-fault’ came into the vernacular with the introduction of ‘no-fault’ car insurance. The rationale behind no-fault car insurance was to move cases more quickly into ‘settlements.’
The same is true for no-fault divorce because now the emphasis is on moving cases into mediation where settlements are supposed to be reached, conveniently skipping the step of determining viability. Once a petition for divorce is filed, the marriage is essentially doomed, since no one checks for any pulse.
The term “no-fault” has served masterfully to cover up something that is far more sinister. The idea that the State is forcing people out of their marriages is hard to fathom but because every divorce petition is granted, and none are ever denied, then there are certainly a few viable marriages that meet an untimely death.
Conciliation/Reconciliation
Before the onset of no-fault divorce there was a burgeoning activity around the country called the Conciliation Court Movement with the focus on marital reconciliation. This movement began in 1939 when California enacted its Children’s Court of Conciliation Law in order to:
… protect the rights of children and to promote the public welfare by preserving and promoting family life and the institution of matrimony, and to provide means for the reconciliation of spouses and the amicable settlement of domestic and family controversies.
By 1970, Conciliation Courts were operating in Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon and Wisconsin, using a growing body of knowledge and techniques to help restore family life. But now, such lofty goals cannot be found anywhere in our statutes.
When no-fault divorce entered the picture, the emphasis in conciliation courts soon changed to ‘divorce with dignity.’ Settlement negotiations took place under the auspices of a mediator who assisted the courts in keeping the conveyor belt moving.
Is there another possibility? Can distressed spouses find ‘relief’ for their anguish? Could we create Marriage Support facilities that operate in the same way as the Pregnancy Support facilities that offer another answer than abortion? Marriage Support facilities could do the same thing by offering couples the help they need to stay together.
In many ways, the Church might be the perfect home for these facilities. Tribunal offices could incorporate the Conciliation Court model, summoning couples from the civil courts. At this time, spouses are typically directed to Catholic Charities, but this is not enough because the problem requires a blending of both legal and pastoral initiatives.
Also needed are skillful practitioners who are trained in multiple fields. Working with a dyadic relationship is much harder than working with one person individually. Not many practitioners can handle such a challenge without bringing their own biases into the work.
By all appearances we are a nation that wants to defend traditional marriage, as evidenced by the number of state constitutional amendments that have passed. The next step is to protect marriages from being destroyed in this country’s no-fault divorce mills.
roles!
Doh! Lol
No. I guess I misread ‘fwdude’s comment. I took it as ‘stay together no matter what, it’s better for the kids’ and I was reacting to that. I see what he meant now.
*whew*...My attorney all told was about 19k. On that backend of my divorce I’m wrestling with the 40K of debt she left behind. My kids live with me full time and I kept the house so no real complaints. Many on this thread don’t get that sometimes a spouse spirals out of control and divorce IS better for the kids. My kids straight up told me they were pissed at ME because I kept letting their mom come back and live with us. Once they let it be known their true feelings, I got an attorney and began divorce.
If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church.
Eventually, when a father/mother relationship breaks down non-amicably, force must be used to enforce custody, the division of property, etc.
Eventually a legal definition will arise regarding mother/father relationships that will amount to marriage in everything but name.
Moreover, the duty of the State is the preservation and promotion of the Common Good, as classically understood and mentioned in the Preamble to the Constitution. The State has a natural right to preserve and promote marriage, since families constitute the fundamental building block of society. All citizens pass through the institution of the family.
The alternative is the Soviet ideal; free love and the annihilation of the family. Our society is rapidly moving in that direction.
Yes, and I also wish that divorce was easier when I was a kid. My mother beat us because she could not deal with us. Broke my arm when I was just shy of two years old. Our father was in the service and deployed during Vietnam numerous times. My father was not able to get her away from us until we got stationed in a state with looser divorce laws. Son of a Single Father a decade too late.
And if we got rid of no-fault divorce, we'd just return to a situation where spouses would accuse each other of various cruelties (even crimes) to get out of unhappy marriages.
No-fault divorce is bad but I believe the consequences of getting rid of it would be worse. Like many social ills, changes need to be made to hearts and minds rather than codified into law.
Divorce kills the marriage. And damages all kids.parents need to grow up not divorce
The effects of the errors are still reverberating around the world.
No Fault Divorce has created a situation where the woman could run off and sleep with the entire New York Jets football squad, and the courts would still order her husband to pay her support and alimony.
Ending such perverse incentives to violate your vows would go a long way towards cutting the divorce rate.
“Eventually, when a father/mother relationship breaks down non-amicably, force must be used to enforce custody, the division of property, etc.”
A simple binding legal contract could accomplish that, and skip the state “marriage” all together.
Are you saying you prefer anti-God Communist no-fault divorce that has swept America, to the marriage and divorce precedent set forth by Jesus Christ (Matt. 19)? That America once held to and believed?
- Failure to intend a lifetime commitment at the time of the wedding. Easily, instantly claimed.
- Unwillingness to ever beget children at the time of the wedding. Even if children are begotten? Again, easily, instantly claimed.
- Failure to consumate; impotence at the time of the wedding. So, Stephen Hawking can't marry?
- Mental incompetence at the time of the wedding. Based on whose assessment? Define "incompetence." That disqualifies a huge segment of society for marriage.
- Etc. Exactly. "Etc." is the all applicable excuse.
I'm saying I don't want to see innocent men getting accused of molesting their kids so that the wife can get a divorce and full custody.
I'll concern myself with my marriage. Other people's marriages, not so much.
A contract has to rest on some kind of law or precedent, and when the legislation is written, it will end up being marriage in essence, if not in name.
I'm not sure what you mean. I've spoken with people who told me that they took the vows, but in their hearts reserved the right to divorce.
That is not easily proved at the time of the wedding.
- Unwillingness to ever beget children at the time of the wedding. Even if children are begotten? Again, easily, instantly claimed.
Again, not sure what your point is. The fact that a couple has children does not prove that, at the time of the wedding, they did not intend to ever have children.
- Failure to consumate; impotence at the time of the wedding. So, Stephen Hawking can't marry?
Today, that is correct. At the time of his marriage, when he was healthy, he could enter into marriage.
Consider the alternative. Under your rubric, any couple that cannot bear children, in principle, can be married.
We are witnessing the result of the acceptance of that principle today with homosexual "marriage."
I don't want to lay a bum trip on anyone, but the homosexual "marriage" movement is the logical consequence of the widespread acceptance of birth control (voluntarily sterile "marriage").
- Mental incompetence at the time of the wedding. Based on whose assessment? Define "incompetence." That disqualifies a huge segment of society for marriage.
Judge, jury, precedent, etc. This is where the rubber meets the road. But the fact that rubber meets road does not negate the principles of rubber and road.
So you do believe anti-God communist no-fault divorce is superior to Jesus Christ’s rules for divorce?
Your comment is telling. Marriage is about children, as much as it is about the parents.
To be indifferent to "other people's marriages," or the institution of marriage, is to be indifferent to the children of divorce.
Wow, big surprise. Someone who wants the right to divorce claims that they had the intention at their wedding required to get granted an annulment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.