Arianna Huffington is a fount of bad ideas, so it’s not really surprising that she’s recently added to the Huffington Post an entire section dedicated to divorce. Heading up the project is thrice married film director Nora Ephron who says her theory is that “marriages come and go, but divorces are forever.” Ironically, Ms. Ephron makes “romantic comedies.” Perhaps she should make “divorce comedies” instead.
Nevertheless, while I think the HuffPost’s approach to the subject will be a disaster, I have to give Huffington and Ephron credit for posting an article by Beverly Willett on “Saying No to No-Fault.”
Willet, you may remember, is the woman I mentioned back in August who did what many people consider unthinkable—refused to give in to her husband’s demand for a divorce.
After the original article ran at The Daily Beast, the response was overwhelmingly hostile:
Hate mail had already begun rolling in to the website. Eventually, there were e-mails and messages waiting for me on Facebook, too. I never expected such an outpouring of venom from total strangers. More than anything, though, I was bewildered, as baffled perhaps as I’d been the day my ex announced his departure.
What was controversial about a woman who loved her husband and children more than anything and wanted to save her family from the heartaches of divorce? Was she really an “idiot,” a “psycho” bent on “revenge,” out to hog-tie the man who freely said “I do” into “forced slavery” because of her hard-headed sense of right and wrong? That’s what some anonymous commenters thought. Maybe divorce brings out the worst in people.
The comments on the article reinforce her point. One reader added what is likely to be a common view on the new divorce section: “My position on marriage is simple: I find it highly unreasonable, and in fact, insane, to promise UNDER CONTRACT to deliver a specific emotion to ONLY one person, with the length of the contract being FOREVER. Americans don’t even like 2-year cell phone contracts, where they actually GET something out of it.”
November 10th, 2010 | 1:04 pm
“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. ”
I always find it ironic how popular this verse is for weddings and how misunderstood it is by the very people who insist on having a story book wedding. Based on the commonality of comments like you cited; “love is mere feeling”, etc., it would seem that most people never even hear what is being said…which of course remind one of Isaiah 6 and Matthew 13. God forgive us all for our hardheartedness.
November 10th, 2010 | 1:06 pm
“My position on marriage is simple: I find it highly unreasonable, and in fact, insane, to promise UNDER CONTRACT to deliver a specific emotion to ONLY one person, with the length of the contract being FOREVER. Americans don’t even like 2-year cell phone contracts, where they actually GET something out of it.””
AHA! It’s not surprising that a person coming out against marriage would have no idea that love is not “a specific emotion” but an act of the will, shifting emotions be damned.
With society having no rational concept of “love,” a care-free divorce culture makes absolute sense.
November 10th, 2010 | 1:16 pm
Love: the Emotion, is maintained & strengthened only through Love: the Verb. That mental disconnect is really the issue when it comes to this topic. Love: the Verb is the seed you plant if you want to harvest Love: the Eternal.
November 10th, 2010 | 1:19 pm
It’s not surprising that Willett is receiving so much hatred. No-fault divorce is a sacrament of the 60s generation; it came hand-in-hand with the sexual revolution and caused just as many problems. Our consumer culture encourages people to see marriage as a trial experience: if you don’t like it, you can always return your spouse for a better one. One study after another shows that divorce does not free people, it just makes things more complicated – especially when there are kids. If it harms people, no one wants to know. Sad to say, divorce is so entrenched that we may never get rid of it.
November 10th, 2010 | 1:25 pm
The views expressed at the Huffington Post and other left-secular sites are the epitome of our consummer culture: people are things, like cell phones, to be disposed of when they “get in the way” of what I want. And yet, on those same principles the secular left wants to build a worldly utopia based on selfless solidarity for the “marginalized.” I don’t get it.
November 10th, 2010 | 1:54 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Sunnie, Andy Oviatt. Andy Oviatt said: RT @rofters: Not Giving in to No-Fault Divorce (Part II) http://bit.ly/94o0HR [...]
November 10th, 2010 | 2:01 pm
@Cathy: We all need to think in the long terms, centuries and millennia. No fault divorce hasn’t been around that long and is already showing that it does enormous damage. Perhaps the sixties generation, my own I would add, needs to die out first, but the seeds of a return to some sanity must be planted now.
For too many, “I love you” means “you make me feel good”. So, many assume they must make the partner feel good for eternity. Hence, “I have feelings for you.” Any long term married person knows that’s nonsense and not possible. Life (and death) happens. So love must be something else. Corinthians for the “feel good” lovers defines the conditions under which those feelings must be delivered, also not possible. The idea that Paul is defining Love itself doesn’t occur to them.
November 10th, 2010 | 2:13 pm
In regards to this:
“The comments on the article reinforce her point. One reader added what is likely to be a common view on the new divorce section: “My position on marriage is simple: I find it highly unreasonable, and in fact, insane, to promise UNDER CONTRACT to deliver a specific emotion to ONLY one person, with the length of the contract being FOREVER.”
I am fully aware that I am pointing out the obvious here but here it goes anyway: marriage is much more than a contract; it is a sacrament.
November 10th, 2010 | 3:02 pm
I’m intrigued by the person who rails against being “under contract.” This person presumably then does not engage in any other exclusive contracts (business, legal, etc…)?
If 2 people willingly enter a business contract, and suddenly one decides that he “wants out” he is not free simply to break the contract, and no one would fault the second person for taking the issue to court and fighting the ability of the first to end the contract on a whim.
If we’re going to look at marriage as nothing more than a contract, then why is it wrong for the woman to fight for the preservation of the “contract,” under the terms which were originally agreed upon?
November 10th, 2010 | 3:20 pm
Or, dare we say, if you don’t want to enter into a permanently binding contract, then DON’T.
Strange, though: if people don’t want marriage, why do they keep getting “married”?
November 10th, 2010 | 3:22 pm
As I understand it, the Biblical procedure for divorce is fairly simple. Deuteronomy 24. The debate among the religious leaders in Jesus’ time was whether this simple procedure could be used on an essentially no fault basis (she burned my toast) or whether it should be employed only for serious offenses (adultery). They asked Jesus his opinion on the subject, and Jesus replied that a married couple has become one flesh and what God has joined man should not separate. Matthew 19.
The question, it seems to me, is whether Jesus intended for the civil authorities to apply his proscription for everyone, or whether he was speaking only to believers seeking to please God. In other words, is Jesus’ response to the Pharisees ground for asking the legislature to pass a law precluding divorce – for believers and unbelievers alike — except in the case of adultery? Certainly, that is where for centuries the law stood in the Anglo-American tradition, but does the passage truly warrant this approach?
Did Jesus intend for us to rely on the civil authorities to enforce his views on the subject of divorce on the entire population? The fact that the Pharisees in Jesus’ time had both temporal and spiritual authority blurs the issue and makes it harder to understand the scope of his proscription.
Undoubtedly a prudential case can be made that divorce is too easy and the social pathologies that result from a crumbling family structure can be reduced by making it harder to get a divorce. But that is a prudential, not a scriptural, analysis. From a scriptural point of view, could it not be the case that Jesus was saying to his followers, “Yes, this no fault mechanism is available, but whatever others might do with it, if you want to follow my way you will not use it except in the most extreme of circumstances”?
I’m just asking. My thoughts on this subject are tentative and inchoate, and I am not sure what the answer is. Many Christians take the premise “Jesus would abolish no fault divorce” for granted when they reach the conclusion that our divorce laws should be reformed. Maybe that premise is sound. I don’t know. All I am saying is that we should examine it and satisfy ourselves that it sound instead of taking it for granted.
November 10th, 2010 | 4:53 pm
Katie –
Katie, you’ve missed the commenter’s point. A contract that cannot be fulfilled is void. The commenter is making the point that the contract can’t be fulfilled, and is therefore “insane”.
Now, certainly way they characterize the terms of the contract can be disputed. It’s equally possible to contend that marriage isn’t a contract at all. But the point itself is not automatically self-contradictory. (Though I disagree with it, too, for not completely different reasons.)
It’s also worth noting that, from the perspective of the state, marriage can’t be anything but a contract. Churches are free to regard it as something else, of course.
November 10th, 2010 | 4:55 pm
@Barry: I understand your confusion. What with SSM with its express claim that it’s all about the feelings of the individuals involved and with the ease of exit, I sometimes wonder if the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. It is as though, marriage’s existence serves only to make entitlement claims against the government.
Then I remember the stats and the long teaching that marriage is about the possibility of children. The government should indeed be interested and, hence, involved in that. Children matter and with the current handling of marriage, we, as a nation and as individuals, are failing them badly.
November 10th, 2010 | 7:16 pm
Since no-fault divorce is the law in many states, I’m afraid it’s futile to rail against it–it’s still the law. If enough people disagree with the concept, they can appeal to their legislators to change the law. But as long as the law is in place, we need to consider the welfare of the children first.
If one spouse wants a divorce, and is not willing to re-consider and try to make the marriage work, and is able to get one through the no-fault divorce law, then the divorce will happen. In this scenario, the most important thing in regards to the children is for the couple to cooperate to make the divorce go as easily and smoothly as possible in order to minimize the trauma for the children.
I sympathize with anyone who does not want to end a marriage and split up a family. This is a terrible position to be in. But if the divorce is going to happen anyway, fighting against it could be considered selfish if doing so will cause increased trauma to the children.
Studies and experience have shown that children can recover from the upset they go through while their parents are getting divorced. It’s the prolonged conflict between parents after the divorce is over, which is exacerbated by an antagonistic divorce, that does lasting damage. When parents can’t stop fighting after the divorce, children learn that problems can’t be solved. This is not what we want for our children.
November 10th, 2010 | 7:28 pm
Mike, as I hope I made clear in my first comment, I am certain that a prudential case can be made for making divorce more difficult. I am wondering about the scriptural warrant we have for doing so.
November 10th, 2010 | 8:23 pm
I will always remember the words of the priest who performed our wedding ceremony: “Some people make interesting contracts. You fulfill my needs and I fulfill your needs. If you fail to fulfill my needs, I will go elsewhere to have my needs fulfilled. That may be good for them. But a Christian marriage is not a contract. It is a covenant, founded and grounded on the Lord Jesus Christ.” In other words, a sacred promise is very different from a contract.
November 10th, 2010 | 8:55 pm
@Barry: Indeed I had my understanding of you upside down. Though I am puzzled now. You note Matthew 19. Is it possible you believe Jesus didn’t mean it? Or that he only meant to include Jews, there being no Christians yet?
And what of the commandments, however you number them? Should we consider that “Thou shall not murder.” was only meant for religious folk? Certainly “Thou shall not commit adultery.” has lost considerable force.
As to the public idea of marriage, I believe it can recover though it will take time, probably longer than I’ll be around. We humans don’t like admitting we were wrong no matter how the facts accumulate. For example, living together before marriage, now widely exercised, offers no evidence that it improves marriage, which was the claim back in the late ’60s, early 70′s.
November 10th, 2010 | 11:23 pm
Ed Sherman Studies and experience have shown that children can recover from the upset they go through while their parents are getting divorced.
Ed, I’m not all that familiar with the research in this area, but I was under the impression that children of divorce (on average) never quite recover from it, no matter how amicable their parents remain toward one another. I’d be interested to read a study (or summary of it) that concluded otherwise. Do you know of any that are readily accessible?
November 11th, 2010 | 3:16 am
Mike, I am quite certain that Jesus did not expect his followers to take each and every one of his commandments and agitate for the civil authorities to enforce it as law.
November 11th, 2010 | 4:20 am
The backlash from this is that men are less likely to marry. Eventually those women scared of being under contract will find that no one will enter that contract with them for fear of losing their children, their assets, and enduring a bad relationship.
You all are lucky: the Catholic Church still has marriage as something more. For us outside of it marriage keeps looking worse and worse.
November 11th, 2010 | 11:05 pm
So if this man isn’t able to get a divorce he will return to his wife and they will have a happy and healthy marriage? Evidence please?
November 13th, 2010 | 7:08 pm
I’m glad to see less anger here then what we see at Huffington’s comment section.
Just some FYI’S:
1. No-fault Divorce was borrowed from the Soviets. When the NCCUSL drafted this law, (and the transcripts are available from the original proceedings during 1960′s (credit goes to Judy Parejko who obtained them-also see Stolen Vows, the Illusion of No-fault Divorce and the Rise of the American Divorce Industry) and another book entitled Silent Revolution-by Herb Jacobs?) the drafters stated that the law had to be “camouflaged” so it did not look like the Russian Post Card Divorce, otherwise the legislators of each state would not adopt the law. The NCCUSL decided to add a “final hearing” to give the impression that NFD was a “judicial” process vs. ministerial. In the US the reality is we do have a Russian style Post Card Divorce- where a rubber stamp is given for every petition filed- all and every divorce is granted.
2. The law is unconstitutional since it is a denial of due process since the petitioner always wins and the outcome of every hearing is pre-determined. NFD is also a violation of First Amendment to US Constitution since the only religion we are permitted to follow is the state’s secular religion.
3. NFD and the Abortion law were drafted by the NCCUSL (and arm of the ABA) within days of each other (before Roe v Wade was decided).
4. The NCCUSL drafted the law pertaining the licensing of marriage and the Churches stood by and allowed the states to take away marriages from the religious sector. Why are the clergy not taking back their marriages from the state?
5. Divorce does not solve the problem and may be seen as an “acting-out.” The state gladly helps to break-down families and marriages because there are huge financial incentives. The state’s receive money from fed. gov.- for every dollar of child support that is ordered, approx. 7 cents is kicked back to the state from fed. Spouses who are incarcerated is a good thing since the state also receives funds from Uncle Sam as well for every day they are in jail. The AG’s job in every state is to develop programs to aid in the breakdown of families so that Title IV-D funds are sent to the state.
6. We need to change our culture to one of marriage, get the state out of marriage, and provide healing interventions so that spouses can find relief from those who are counselors of human relationships (e.g. faith based leaders) not counselors of law.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact